1 |
Greetings, |
2 |
|
3 |
Some users are reporting memory leaks during dev-lang/perl install, where |
4 |
it eats up all of the memory. |
5 |
|
6 |
Example: |
7 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34705 |
8 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54835 |
9 |
|
10 |
Surely it seems to be a problem for some people. FEATURES=maketest should |
11 |
cover this, but the perl maintainers have the ebuild written in a way that |
12 |
forces src_test even if "maketest" isn't enabled. Ex.: |
13 |
|
14 |
~~~snip~~~ |
15 |
# i want people to have to take actions to disable tests, because |
16 |
# they reveal lots of important problems in clear ways. if that |
17 |
# happens, you can revisit this, but portage .51 will call |
18 |
# src_test if FEATURES=maketest is enabled, and we'll call it here |
19 |
# if it isn't. |
20 |
|
21 |
if ! hasq maketest $FEATURES; then |
22 |
src_test |
23 |
fi |
24 |
} |
25 |
|
26 |
src_test() { |
27 |
use uclibc && export MAKEOPTS="${MAKEOPTS} -j1" |
28 |
emake -i test CCDLFLAGS= || die "test failed" |
29 |
} |
30 |
~~~snip~~~ |
31 |
|
32 |
I can understand that, perhaps, perl@g.o. want users to run tests to make |
33 |
sure it's sane before install. However, I don't think it should be |
34 |
forced, especially since the testing part itself seems to be buggy -- a |
35 |
problem for people, even if it's not for devs. That's separate and |
36 |
regardless of whether the tests pass or fail. |
37 |
|
38 |
So, my question is, why was the above bug was closed CANTFIX? Telling |
39 |
people to hack the ebuild to avoid a buggy test routine is not a solution. |
40 |
|
41 |
Cheers, |
42 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@g.o] |
43 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |