| 1 |
On 2020-04-12 11:21, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is not a problem that can be solved by a binary flag. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> If package's test suite is entirely broken and unmaintained, the package |
| 5 |
> should use RESTRICT=test and not silently ask arch teams to ignore it. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If package's test suite is only slightly broken, then I'd prefer saying |
| 8 |
> 'please report but ignore *these* test failures' because I can't fix |
| 9 |
> them right now but they don't seem major. Skipping the test suite |
| 10 |
> entirely is not a solution because it doesn't disambiguate between 'few |
| 11 |
> tests fail' and 'every single test explodes'. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
ACK. I also see no need for any new mechanism. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> - There are people that rant if you open a test failure bug against their |
| 17 |
> packages and you block the stabilization. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Maybe start ignoring those packages until people learn that |
| 20 |
stabilization is a lot of effort/work. Really, if you call for |
| 21 |
stabilization and haven't tested your own package you are offloading |
| 22 |
work to others which is not nice. I also dislike maintainers who simply |
| 23 |
restrict tests on first failure. But in the end it's at least a strong |
| 24 |
signal about package quality and state in Gentoo. :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 30 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives