| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:42:34 +0200 |
| 2 |
Bo Ørsted Andresen <zlin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Err.. Maybe this could have been phrased better but then I did expect |
| 4 |
> you would look at the bug before commenting. The idea is to enable |
| 5 |
> tests by default in EAPI 2 and beyond and let them stay off by |
| 6 |
> default in EAPI 0 and 1. This way devs who want to use EAPI 2 will |
| 7 |
> either have to fix their tests or RESTRICT them. Doing it this way |
| 8 |
> avoids the issue of having to fix the whole tree all at once. Users |
| 9 |
> can still choose not to go with the default. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
if people are just going to RESTRICT tests when they fail (and they |
| 12 |
will, because it's a hell of a lot easier than actually fixing them), |
| 13 |
what's the point of having a testsuite at all? and once a testsuite is |
| 14 |
restricted, it'll stay restricted even if upstream fixes the problem |
| 15 |
because no one will bother checking. the time needed for |
| 16 |
testsuites can be substantial. (auto{make,conf} can take half an hour |
| 17 |
to run the tests on a fast machine (compared to the total compile |
| 18 |
and install time of 10 seconds). the build time for gcc triples.) they |
| 19 |
can pull in a large number of dependencies. etc, etc. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
as i mentioned on the bug, i'd like to see something like |
| 22 |
FEATURES=dev that would enable tests by default, turn on those QA |
| 23 |
source code warnings, maybe some of the stuff from stricter, and other |
| 24 |
things that our users don't really need but are important to us. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
anyways, just my opinion. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Users can still choose not to go with the default. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
so can devs, and they outnumber us. ;) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 35 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 36 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives