On 22/02/2021 17:21, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
>> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> +1 for option 2, fwiw.
> I'm in favour of option 2.
Option 2 it is then.
>
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
>> As far as RPM is concerned, splitting the two is important, as %build
>> and %check are explicitly separate steps. I have no idea what the deb
>> policy/organisation is here.
> The reason why distro build systems like to distinguish "build" from
> "check" (run tests) is that often the tests are time-consuming (or
> have intrusive dependencies or other practical problems).
>
> IMO if the ABI check is very fast there is no reason not to run it by
> default. (We have configure to deal with the dependency issue.)
It turns out that libxl causes abi-dumper to churn for ~4s or so, which
isn't ideal. All the other libraries are in the noise.
If we are going for a check-by-default policy, then we obviously need to
exclude the non-stable libraries by default.
However, to fix problems pertaining to the unstable libraries,
downstreams do need to be able to invoke checking on the other libraries
as well.
I'll have a think as to how best to make that happen.
~Andrew
