| 1 |
Hi Daniel, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2007 schrieb Daniel Gryniewicz: |
| 4 |
> Honestly, tests are nice, but too many of them are broken upstream, |
| 5 |
> and we are not (and should not be, IMO) in the position of fixing |
| 6 |
> them all. If a developer wants to work with her upstream to fix the |
| 7 |
> tests in her packages, great and more power to her. Most of us are |
| 8 |
> swamped just supporting them, let alone fixing test cases. You |
| 9 |
> really need an upstream who cares a lot about tests for the tests to |
| 10 |
> be meaningful and work. Lots of upstreams don't currently care, and |
| 11 |
> have inherited obsolete and (now) broken tests from previous |
| 12 |
> maintainers. |
| 13 |
When you read Piotr's original mail carefully, you will see that he |
| 14 |
lists 'non-functional' as category, and nobody keeps you from declaring |
| 15 |
your packages' test-suites as such. However, keep in mind that several |
| 16 |
other maintainers don't have so many problems with their test-suites. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I think this thread in general overestimates the value of tests in |
| 19 |
> packages. I think we will find, if we go through the effort, that |
| 20 |
> more of them are useless and/or broken than are useful. My 2 cents. |
| 21 |
As a member of the sci team I have to say I completely disagree with you |
| 22 |
here. sci-* packages mostly have reasonable test suites, the importance |
| 23 |
to run them is very high (you do want reproducable and correct results, |
| 24 |
don't you?). However, sometimes you cannot run those tests from an |
| 25 |
ebuild's environment, for example when you need a running x-server. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Danny |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
| 30 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives