On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:01:18 +0100, Martin Pitt <mp...@debian.org> wrote: > Antonio Terceiro [2014-03-17 9:59 -0300]: > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:27:06PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote: > FTR, we explicitly make use of that for our toolchain packages: gcc, > binutils, linux, and eglibc have a "bin/true" test with "needs build" > to ensure that whenever we update one piece, the others are still > buildable and their tests succeed (which run at build time). I know > that this is somewhat of an abuse of autopkgtest, but it does work :-)
So effectively it becomes a "rebuild reverse-dependencies" tool as well, nice! (Although I do agree with the abuse part.) > > > Wouldn't it make sense to change DEP8 to encourage building > > > whatever is strictly required for the tests, and perhaps drop > > > "build-needed" altogether? > > I wouldn't want to drop build-needed, as it only complicates things > for the cases where people want it. But I'm happy to add a stanza to > its documentation to avoid it for packages which take a nontrivial > amount of time to build; does that sound like an acceptable > compromise? It does indeed, with Jakub's idea of copying only the required code to $ADTTMP too. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
