Hello,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Damien Raude-Morvan
<dam...@raude-morvan.com> wrote:
> Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests, if these are present.
> *However, these tests &mustnot; lead to build failures.*
>
> For some library packages (ie. commons-maths), I'm confidence enough to
> enable unit tests and trust upstream QA : if some JUnit tests fail there
> must be a problem somewhere (Build-Depends, JVM, pbuilder/buildd
> context...) and package should not be uploaded/NMUed.
> For example, in commons-math I've made a patch to comply with this policy
> [1], which made me a little awkward :)
>
> What do you think about rephrase it to something like :
>
> Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests, if these are present.
> *However, these tests &should; not lead to build failures unless
> Maintainer is confident enough that tests are stable between builds*
I think we are missing the point here; for instance, I've mostly
disabled junit tests because they depend on not-yet-packaged or even
non-DFSG-free libraries. I think both formulations are too oriented
towards: "junit tests should be enabled unless they fail", which
basically defeats the purpose of any test suite. I think we don't need
any comment about build failures: "should" is weak enough that a
maintainer could disable it if he/she thinks there are good reasons to
do so.
Cheers,
Vincent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/2e474d6f1003260324u72b2a9atdcb4582cca696...@mail.gmail.com
