On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:55 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:50:17 +0300 > Peter Volkov <p...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > If failures are non fatal I don't object to having src_test enabled by > > default and I'll all for this even. > > ...and src_test becomes utterly worthless again.
Your definition of worthless doesn't match the one in my vocabulary, because it is very much worth it when many developers have FEATURES=test and routinely make sure the packages they use pass the test or file a bug. It is quite irresponsible to enable that by default for the FULL user base, given the state of the tree in regards to it, many upstreams stance on tests and their failures, and the (very) considerable extra time it takes to run them while it's already slower in relation to binary distributions. Enabling tests by default feels like driving users away, because all of a sudden their upgrades taken even more time (possibly unexplained to them, as an EAPI bump in an ebuild introducing it is not visible to them), and they'd just say to hell with it and go to a binary distribution that runs the tests for maintainers only, as we should. Yet we have the _choice_ to take that extra time and double-check on maintainers if they really did their job right. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
