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

Re: [Summery] Re: Integrating the FOSDEM 06 Draft into the Java Policy

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.


  Programs and libraries &should; enable JUnit tests,
  if these are present. The build &may; ignore test


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: