On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Johnson <mj...@debian.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I believe the default was 'off' because having transients which aren't
> actually
> problems causing the build to fail on a buildd is bad. I certainly agree with
> Damien's phrasing, if you are sure they are fine then you can have them cause
> the build to fail, but you should actively be thinking in that direction.
I completely agree with you, but what I find is that it is
"packaging common sense" and not policy. My "proposition" is simply to
let the "should" mean "use your common sense" and not specify further.
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/2e474d6f1003260404h6ee4f77dv22fa7c9a81f6f...@mail.gmail.com
