Hi, "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <[email protected]> skribis:
> The new package transformation option --without-tests works by setting > #:tests? #f in the specified packages. But some packages replace > their 'check phase and no longer honor #tests?. glib for example. Oh, we should fix ‘glib’ in ‘core-updates’. > Attached is an attempt to document this current behavior. Shall I > push it? Alternatively, it should be documented to write a check > phase that honors #:tests?. Or the package transformation should be > changed to remove any check phase it finds. Hmm not sure, I think fiddling with phases is more risky or at least could lead to more obscure errors for example with build systems that don’t support phases, like ‘trivial-build-system’. I’m inclined to apply the patch you propose and leaving phases unchanged. >>From b55e6ee01fe674b282e7ec75d0e4c8a839262261 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Florian Pelz <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:35:52 +0200 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Subject: [PATCH] doc: Explain why '--without-tests' may fail with modified > 'check' phase. > > * doc/guix.texi (Package Transformation Options): Explain. [...] > +Internally, @code{--without-tests} relies on changing the > +@code{#:tests?} option of a package's @code{check} phase (@pxref{Build > +Systems}). Note that some packages use a customized @code{check} phase > +that does not respect a @code{#:tests? #f} setting. Therefore there are > +some packages for which @code{--without-tests} cannot disable tests. I’d change the last sentence to: Therefore, @option{--without-tests} has no effect on these packages. Thanks, Ludo’.
