Re: nocheck (don't run) vs nodoc (don't build)
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 16:48:43 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Simon> - the nocheck option SHOULD NOT alter the contents of any
> Simon> binary package
>
> I agree this is true--possibly even as a MUST--for the nocheck build
> profile, but
> I think DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS are allowed to modify the contents of binary
> packages.
> As an example nostrip certainly modifies the size of things, and noopt
> can modify the behavior and performance.
Yes, I'm not making a general statement about DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS here:
some of the other options clearly do alter binary packages.
I think that as a design principle, DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck,
specifically, should not affect the contents of binary packages (because
like the build-profile of the same name, it's about whether to run tests,
and not about what to package).
> My assumption was that if you were specifying the nocheck build option,
> you don't want to run tests, possibly because they are flaky and/or you
> are trying a build for some local reason even though you know the tests
> will fail.
>
> If you actually want to avoid building the tests, use the nocheck build
> profile (assuming that can be done without modifying binary packages).
I agree, although if the package has installed-tests (like dbus-tests,
fwupd-tests, systemd-tests) then you would also need to turn those off
with the noinsttest build profile to get the desired effect.
> If my reasoning is correct, my interpretation is that nocheck option
> can build tests or not, depending on whatever is convenient.
Yes, I have the same interpretation.
smcv
Reply to: