Vincent Fourmond wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> wrote: >>> I think we are missing the point here; for instance, I've mostly >>> disabled junit tests because they depend on not-yet-packaged or even >>> non-DFSG-free libraries. I think both formulations are too oriented >>> towards: "junit tests should be enabled unless they fail", which >>> basically defeats the purpose of any test suite. I think we don't need >>> any comment about build failures: "should" is weak enough that a >>> maintainer could disable it if he/she thinks there are good reasons to >>> do so. >> I believe the default was 'off' because having transients which aren't actually >> problems causing the build to fail on a buildd is bad. I certainly agree with >> Damien's phrasing, if you are sure they are fine then you can have them cause >> the build to fail, but you should actively be thinking in that direction. > > I completely agree with you, but what I find is that it is > "packaging common sense" and not policy. My "proposition" is simply to > let the "should" mean "use your common sense" and not specify further. > > Cheers, > > Vincent > > How do these suggestions sound? Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests, if these are present. or: Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests, if these are present. The build &may; ignore test failures. ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature