| 1 |
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:35:49 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests: |
| 8 |
> > > * glibc |
| 9 |
> > > * autoconf |
| 10 |
> > > * gettext |
| 11 |
> > > * tar |
| 12 |
> > > That makes _4_ system packages. Before I would consider making |
| 13 |
> > > FEATURES=test a default, I would add least want the system set to |
| 14 |
> > > actually merge with it. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > So you're happy to let users install these packages without them |
| 17 |
> > knowing the tests would fail? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> before i added binutils-2.17, i ran `make check` on it for about 25 |
| 20 |
> targets ... of those, about 10 failed ... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> i checked with upstream and others reproduced it ... i dont know |
| 23 |
> about you, but i dont have the skills to go in and fix the failures |
| 24 |
> for all of those architectures |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Agreed, however you could rig src_test() to either skip the tests on |
| 27 |
those arches, or run them without die()ing and ewarn about the known |
| 28 |
failures on those arches, or just leave them in ~arch (or even |
| 29 |
masked) for the arches where they fail, depending on the impact of the |
| 30 |
failures. That sort of thing is well within our role of package |
| 31 |
management. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> while i like the idea of all packages being able to pass |
| 34 |
> FEATURES=test, somethings it just aint gonna happen with Gentoo's |
| 35 |
> available skill set -mike |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives