On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 03:56:24PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > > I would like another option besides disabling the test unconditionally. > > We already have several packages that can simply not be built on > > hardware like Jookia's, and although it's an unfortunate situation, I > > don't think we should start disabling tests for the substitutes we build > > for this reason. Running all the tests possible allows us to provide > > valuable feedback to upstream. > > I basically agree with your comment, which is also in line with our policy > of following upstream as closely as possible when building packages. > On the other hand, a simple unit test that requires 2GB of memory seems a bit > excessive to me and could be considered a bug in the upstream package. > How about reporting a bug upstream, Jookia? And maybe disable the test > in the package with a comment linking to the bug report?
True, depending on the nature of the software it could be considered a bug. There are some programs, like compression algorithm implementations, where I think such tests can be appropriate, however. > > Andreas >
