Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:14:48 +0200:
Adding more build time, requirements (yes, there are some tests that
needs more ram and cpu to complete than the actual build phase) w/out
ways to opt out is just hindering our users.
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Apr
2007 23:01:40 -0400:
they realize they have no way at all of disabling the mandatory test ...
RESTRICT is an ebuild variable, not a package manager variable
this is why implementing it via the profile
Matthias Langer wrote:
Hmm, as an arch tester, i completely agree that packages where src_test
fails are an annoyance. However, I would not suggest to activate
src_test by default, as for normal users, it just introduces another
source of potential defects, without that much benefits. Instead,
Steve Long kirjoitti:
That makes a lot of sense. How about exending it a tiny bit and asking for
it to be policy for all ebuilds EAPI=1 not to be allowed into stable
without RESTRICT=test, or a functional test suite on the arch in question?
The last bit would be automagically checked by the
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 14:58 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steve Long kirjoitti:
That makes a lot of sense. How about exending it a tiny bit and asking for
it to be policy for all ebuilds EAPI=1 not to be allowed into stable
without RESTRICT=test, or a functional test suite on the arch in
On Saturday 14 April 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
bug 165085
i'd do some research into the glibc situation before you go pointing at it
-mike
pgpe73v4Qiw7K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:24:25 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in
my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks
want.
Well, EAPI 1
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in
my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks
want.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:11:07 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
a later EAPI.
this is really up to the portage team to drive
If they instead
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
a later EAPI.
this is really up to the portage team to drive
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you're proposing we suddenly bloat all of our src_install
functions for no gain at all
How big a bloat is it? Surely it's a coupla lines in the eclasses? Cos the
behaviour is inconsistent, as Ciaran pointed out.
Well no, they
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Apr 2007
20:33:09 +0100:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:06:44 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a test suite isn't viable, the ebuild should be RESTRICTing test
anyway.
which doesnt apply here
12 matches
Mail list logo
