[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Consistent handling of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS



On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > > nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
> > > actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
> > > part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
> > 
> > Imho this should be either nocheck or notest, supporting both is a bit
> > pointless. Using notest or nocheck is also pretty useful for debugging
> > purposes, if you don't need a lengthy test but want to have a new build
> > fast.
> 
> I think all the toolchain packages use nocheck - at least binutils,
> glibc and gcc do (I filed bugs for a couple of them).
> 
> I wanted to get around to introduce nocheck in a couple more packages,
> but maybe it's better to just settle on it now and propose it for policy
> inclusion for lenny.

Excellent.

I'll sort out the bug report.
 
> Which package is using notest?  Last I looked perl had a non-standard
> way (x-no-test or so) and I filed a bug to change that to nocheck as
> well.

(Sure I've seen notest somewhere but can't find it now).

> 
> So let's agree on nocheck?

Agreed.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpi951w42j5B.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: