On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:31:49 +0100 "Miriam Ruiz" <little.miry@gmail.com> wrote: > 2007/11/6, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>: > > 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. 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. > > Some software packages, such as libcap, for example, seem to depend on > some code being autogenerated from a program executed in the target > (in this case, the generation of cap_names.h). What's the proposed way > of handling this? That isn't (or shouldn't be) a test issue, that is a build issue. As such, it should support CC_FOR_BUILD which is set to the build compiler (gcc usually). See : #425445 There is a big difference between building tools within the build and running a test suite. This set: ./configure make make install make dist Should result in an identical distributed tarball as: ./configure make make check make install make dist > Is it gonna be against policy to have building > systems like this? No. > Should the package being built just fail if it just > cannot be built with nocheck? No. Packages should always build without 'make check'. > I know those kind of building systems > are a pain in the anatomy (ass?), I'm not defending them or anything > like that, I'm just wondering what to do about them. Are they gonna be > considered RC bugs? If a package is so broken that 'make check' actually builds a distributed binary then that would be RC, IMHO - just because the build is insane. make check is only for tests during the build. Nothing done during make check should affect any other part of the build. make check either succeeds or it fails. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpbmKk3kHugU.pgp
Description: PGP signature