Hello,
What about:
if jar-file makes you generate a build.xml file, also remove the check phase...
--
Vincent Legoll
Am 05.09.2016 um 22:26 schrieb Danny Milosavljevic:
> I see what you mean. But is it still possible to easily find out which
> packages have tests and which haven't after your patch?
We are talking about the case when #:jar-name is specified. Only in this
case a build.xml will be generated.
Hello
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Danny Milosavljevic
wrote:
> I think being able to know that is important since it's prudent to trust a
> package without tests (much) less.
That's my feeling too
--
Vincent Legoll
Hi Hartmut,
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 13:32:44 +0200
Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> When specifying #:jar-file, the ant-builder will create a build.xml.
> This build.xml did not include a test-target at all. So one *always* had
> to include "#:tests? #f" to disable calling the
Hi,
Am 05.09.2016 um 12:59 schrieb Vincent Legoll:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Hartmut Goebel
> wrote:
>> This avoids the need to set #:tests? #f whenever using #:jar-name
>> (and thus using the default build.xml).
> Isn't it a bit misleading to have a test
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Hartmut Goebel
wrote:
> This avoids the need to set #:tests? #f whenever using #:jar-name
> (and thus using the default build.xml).
Isn't it a bit misleading to have a test target that does no real
testing, or am I
This avoids the need to set #:tests? #f whenever using #:jar-name
(and thus using the default build.xml).
* guix/build/ant-build-system.scm (default-build.xml): Add attribute
to sxml expression.
---
guix/build/ant-build-system.scm | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git