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

Re: Mandatory support for -nocheck in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0500
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:

> Neil Williams wrote:
> > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> > imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
> > prevent the execution of any compiled program within any test suite
> > provided by upstream.
> Disabling such test suites in a cross compilation environment, as Kurt
> suggests, seems to me to make more sense that making notest really mean
> "notest-involving-compiled-binaries".

OK. I'm happy as long as cross-building can rely on -nocheck support. I
think it is worth supporting -nocheck where test suites may take a bit
of time but that can be optional.

If there are test suites that work without executing compiled binaries,
I'm not sure we lose that much by omitting those too.

> > The only checks or tests that can be implemented
> > outside nocheck|notest must only use system binaries from coreutils,
> > binutils-multiarch or one of the gcc binaries.
> Is there some reason they can't use other system binaries, such as perl?
> (I'm thinking of the hundreds of perl packages that have test suites.)

I was just thinking of toolchain packages. Emdebian omits perl so it
didn't crop up in such a scenario.

What about:

"Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling using
dpkg-architecture or when -nocheck is specified in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS."

(The assumption is that all cross-building tools would then set
dpkg-architecture and use -nocheck to ensure that no test suites are
run. This supports using -nocheck to do both when -nocheck would be
useful for debugging etc.)


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpkKb_NZPlgF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: