Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [rfc] variable naming for marking binaries as QA ignorable
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:46:25 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 05 March 2006 19:48, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: > > Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 23:32 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > so we've found some cases where a package installs objects that > > > > either need to be ignored by some of the scanelf checks ... > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > what this e-mail is about is naming convention ... i'm thinking > > > > that an ebuild sets up a variable with a list of relative paths > > > > to $D of files that should be skipped for various checks ... so > > > > with slmodem, we'd have like: QA_EXEC_STACK="usr/sbin/slmodemd > > > > usr/sbin/slmodem_test" > > > > > > > > if, in the future, we need to add an ignore list for TEXTRELs, > > > > we'd use QA_TEXTRELS="" > > > > > > This becomes tricky when looking at tests across all CHOSTs. > > > What holds true for one arch defiantly is not the case for others. > > > > This could be done via the profiles, perhaps - package.qa, something > > like package.mask/use/keywords: > > i hate such things ... imo this information should stay in the ebuild > and nowhere else ... > > be trivial to expand the support like: > QA_TEXTRELS="..." # for all arches > QA_TEXTRELS_arch="..." # for just one arch > > so in the case of slmodem: > QA_EXEC_STACK="usr/sbin/slmodemd" > in the case of some other package that only has issues on x86: > QA_EXEC_STACK_x86="some/foo" > > this thread was about the naming convention :P > does QA_EXEC_STACK and QA_TEXTRELS work for people ? Personally I'd call it QA_IGNORE_*, but that's just me. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [rfc] variable naming for marking binaries as QA ignorable
On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 20:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: [snip] > be trivial to expand the support like: > QA_TEXTRELS="..." # for all arches > QA_TEXTRELS_arch="..." # for just one arch > > so in the case of slmodem: > QA_EXEC_STACK="usr/sbin/slmodemd" > in the case of some other package that only has issues on x86: > QA_EXEC_STACK_x86="some/foo" > > this thread was about the naming convention :P > does QA_EXEC_STACK and QA_TEXTRELS work for people ? > -mike I'd prefer EXECSTACK as one word to follow suit with ld, but otherwise works for me. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [rfc] variable naming for marking binaries as QA ignorable
On Sunday 05 March 2006 19:48, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: > Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 23:32 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > so we've found some cases where a package installs objects that > > > either need to be ignored by some of the scanelf checks ... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > what this e-mail is about is naming convention ... i'm thinking > > > that an ebuild sets up a variable with a list of relative paths to > > > $D of files that should be skipped for various checks ... so with > > > slmodem, we'd have like: QA_EXEC_STACK="usr/sbin/slmodemd > > > usr/sbin/slmodem_test" > > > > > > if, in the future, we need to add an ignore list for TEXTRELs, we'd > > > use QA_TEXTRELS="" > > > > This becomes tricky when looking at tests across all CHOSTs. > > What holds true for one arch defiantly is not the case for others. > > This could be done via the profiles, perhaps - package.qa, something > like package.mask/use/keywords: i hate such things ... imo this information should stay in the ebuild and nowhere else ... be trivial to expand the support like: QA_TEXTRELS="..." # for all arches QA_TEXTRELS_arch="..." # for just one arch so in the case of slmodem: QA_EXEC_STACK="usr/sbin/slmodemd" in the case of some other package that only has issues on x86: QA_EXEC_STACK_x86="some/foo" this thread was about the naming convention :P does QA_EXEC_STACK and QA_TEXTRELS work for people ? -mike -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [rfc] variable naming for marking binaries as QA ignorable
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 19:56:41 -0500 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 23:32 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > so we've found some cases where a package installs objects that > > either need to be ignored by some of the scanelf checks ... > > > > ... > > > > what this e-mail is about is naming convention ... i'm thinking > > that an ebuild sets up a variable with a list of relative paths to > > $D of files that should be skipped for various checks ... so with > > slmodem, we'd have like: QA_EXEC_STACK="usr/sbin/slmodemd > > usr/sbin/slmodem_test" > > > > if, in the future, we need to add an ignore list for TEXTRELs, we'd > > use QA_TEXTRELS="" > > This becomes tricky when looking at tests across all CHOSTs. > What holds true for one arch defiantly is not the case for others. This could be done via the profiles, perhaps - package.qa, something like package.mask/use/keywords: net-dialup/slmodem QA_EXECSTACK="..." QA_TEXTRELS="..." -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
