On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0500 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote: > > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and > > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the > > imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely > > prevent the execution of any compiled program within any test suite > > provided by upstream. > > Disabling such test suites in a cross compilation environment, as Kurt > suggests, seems to me to make more sense that making notest really mean > "notest-involving-compiled-binaries". OK. I'm happy as long as cross-building can rely on -nocheck support. I think it is worth supporting -nocheck where test suites may take a bit of time but that can be optional. If there are test suites that work without executing compiled binaries, I'm not sure we lose that much by omitting those too. > > The only checks or tests that can be implemented > > outside nocheck|notest must only use system binaries from coreutils, > > binutils-multiarch or one of the gcc binaries. > > Is there some reason they can't use other system binaries, such as perl? > (I'm thinking of the hundreds of perl packages that have test suites.) I was just thinking of toolchain packages. Emdebian omits perl so it didn't crop up in such a scenario. What about: "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling using dpkg-architecture or when -nocheck is specified in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS." (The assumption is that all cross-building tools would then set dpkg-architecture and use -nocheck to ensure that no test suites are run. This supports using -nocheck to do both when -nocheck would be useful for debugging etc.) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpInYiC71bf7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
