Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Mandatory support for -nocheck in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS"):
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > What you mean is that you don't want binaries generated at one point
> > being executed later during the build. I think it would be better
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What you mean is that you don't want binaries generated at one point
> being executed later during the build. I think it would be better to
> invent an option `cross' which covered this requirement.
Do we really need a new option? Why not infer this re
Neil Williams writes ("Re: Mandatory support for -nocheck in
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS"):
> "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
> omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling using
> dpkg-architecture or when -nocheck is specified i
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:54:29 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:36:45PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > All I want is that packages omit the test suite when cross compiling.
> > If that is done by detecting the cross compiler, that's OK because the
> > cross
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:36:45PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> All I want is that packages omit the test suite when cross compiling.
> If that is done by detecting the cross compiler, that's OK because the
> cross compiling environment sets -nocheck anyway.
To clarify, the option used to be `noc
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:03:54 +0100
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > What about:
> >
> > "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
> > omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> What about:
>
> "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
> omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling using
> dpkg-architecture or when -nocheck is specified in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS."
If a pa
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> > imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* c
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Atleast some packages now don't run the testsuite when
> DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE != DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE.
>
> Are there any other reasons why testsuites shouldn't be run?
Speed, and wanting to build a package even if its test suite is broken,
I guess.
Neil Williams wrote:
> There ne
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:13:48 +0100
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:47:17PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
> > IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
> > I
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:47:17PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
> IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
> I believe that Policy should stipulate that the maintainer must ensure
> that 'make ch
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:35:00 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
> > [PROPOSAL] New option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
> >
> > What needs to hap
12 matches
Mail list logo
