Hi Russ, On Monday 27 February 2012 17:59:28 Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Another package I was recently testing on GNU Hurd where some tests were > > failing (even though the package is working). > > A bug in the test suite? It's worth being careful about assuming that the > package is working when the tests are failing. :)
Sorry, sorry, never mind. :) Actually I couldn't find peace with it so I checked again I realised that tests actually are not failing on Hurd. Fortunately I was wrong. :) All good, no need to ignore. > > > So again I had to ignore post-build test(s) failure. > > I don't think that makes sense to do for Hurd, actually. The package > needs to be ported to it; I would let the build fail until that's > happened. That may mean just porting the test suite or the test suite may > be uncovering a real issue. That's generally what I do with any > non-release architecture until I have time to do the (low priority, > usually) porting work. You don't want to accidentally hide failures that > need porting effort by making the build succeed "artificially." Fully agreed. > > Testing still useful to me when I read build logs, but I'm very > > reluctant to introduce a potential failure point with dependency more > > strict than necessary. > > Making the *dependency* strict isn't going to add a failure point. It's > not like valgrind is going to disappear on i386 and amd64. True, good point to keep in mind when considering. > If the build failures are mostly due to bugs in the test suite, I agree > with you. That's the criteria on which I'd make the decision. If the > tests are finding bugs, then the failures are valuable and shouldn't be > suppressed. That's common sense, I can only agree. > > And it appears to me that if tests failure is already pretty much > > ignored is would be acceptable to make tests optional with weak build > > dependency. > > However, Debian quite intentionally does not have such a thing as a weak > build dependency, nor do I think such a thing is appropriate here. > Rather, I think you should make a decision: either depend on the tools > required to run the tests and ignore the test failures (if you think > they're bugs in the test suite and not the package) if the output is > valuable, or don't depend on the tools and skip the tests. Thank you, I think this is a good advice. I'll keep it in mind. All the best, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201202272049.33489.only...@member.fsf.org
