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

Mandatory support for -nocheck in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS



On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:35:00 +0100
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
> > [PROPOSAL] New option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
> > 
> > What needs to happen for that to be mandatory in Lenny?
> 
> I am not sure - my plan was to have policy say that *if* there is a
> testsuite and *if* the maintainer chooses to run it during build and
> *if* the maintainer wants to allow the package builder to skip the
> testsuite during build, it should support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck.
> 
> You seem to want to make it more strict than that - maintainers should
> always support nocheck when a testsuite is run (skipping the last if
> above)? 

Correct. 

Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
I believe that Policy should stipulate that the maintainer must ensure
that 'make check' can be skipped when appropriate. I use make check in
some of my own packages, it is useful on things like the autobuilders.
However, if Debian is ever to cross-build successfully, EVERY test
suite that executes compiled code MUST be skipped when cross-building.
The simplest way to do that is to specify that cross-building must
pass -nocheck in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and that all packages must obey
-nocheck.

Equally, every package that compiles a build tool using the native
compiler and then uses that to parse some config or other file, would
have to use CC_FOR_BUILD but those packages are relatively rare and
bugs against those packages should be sufficient to provide this
support.

> That might be something you'd have to discuss with the release
> managers, or bring up again on -devel (or -policy) under a more
> prominent subject to catch the interest of others.

retitled and CC'd d-policy@l.d.o

-- 


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

Attachment: pgpAdxPvDUsiG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: