Am Donnerstag, den 09.04.2009, 13:13 -0400 schrieb Richard Freeman: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > Most packages that have tests have working tests. For those that don't, > > the tests have to be restricted. All this proposal does is ensures that > > that happens in a progressive, incremental and safe way. > > > > I agree with this point - failing tests are more the exception than the > rule. > > Looking at my system the only packages I'm skipping tests for are: > openldap|parted|orbit|samba|kpilot|nautilus|libksieve|karm|libbonoboui|gnome-vfs|pkgconfig|pam|coreutils|pan|mono|glibc|gettext|curl No need to skip samba, there are no tests anymore.
> > Some of those might be fixed now. > > > If packages are failing tests, either it's a legitimate reason, in > > which case it needs to be fixed, or it's not, in which case it needs to > > be restricted. The problem is, currently there's no way for users to > > know which is which. With an EAPI mandated src_test, users will know > > that any failure that gets to them is legitimate. > > Hence my having the list posted above (which is just the ones I use that > I've found problems with). > > I also would like to say that the "slow-test" compromise sounds like a > good idea. > > A fast-running automated test routine is a good sanity check to show > that nothing went wrong during the build. Maybe the user has some odd > version of a dependency that no developer checked with the new package. > Arch testers can't test every combination of dependencies, > configurations, use-flags, etc. > > I would think that this might even cut down on user-reported issues. > Better to find out that a package has a problem BEFORE it is actually > installed. > > If a user is going to spend 10 minutes building a bunch of packages > spending another 30-60 seconds on some basic tests doesn't sound > unreasonable. We could also make it easy for users to disable testing > entirely if they want to live dangerously. >
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
