From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hj1BG-0006y1-HZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 22:50:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l41Mnlrv017893; Tue, 1 May 2007 22:49:47 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l41MlqjG015632 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 22:47:52 GMT Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so121061ugc for ; Tue, 01 May 2007 15:47:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=FDR1E7JQW2zpmjUqjNz03IoW4ARWm8EQBTaPBkXVwClI6Ec7peW9BxTm+AErzS8R5RcJJmljgvjHCHKTXURNnWWNCxas9apIAEjxu7VCisjm+lBbB/b0eu92KMCVaKtKB69A/bg0pqThE3u0aXViogR4llvI8RImtjojjU7LObo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=lFNsMV76B6RmBQm62WQXl1x4BCJf1MIcvFCfk/lya9nvBUzm0SnhrtWzWeqrz3pU+tGcoeI7aHej3BgUL+FJ7ju4tBbVa5RgsHtNL0ZRwCWGZqvUhitAFe3+lebo/h5KPm8gu2xbojtIKbbWNoWXcjcfVCh697fMVI46Ar6M9No= Received: by 10.82.185.12 with SMTP id i12mr50466buf.1178059671980; Tue, 01 May 2007 15:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phoebe.lan ( [82.210.165.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e8sm126619muf.2007.05.01.15.47.50; Tue, 01 May 2007 15:47:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Piotr =?utf-8?q?Jaroszy=C5=84ski?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tests Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 00:47:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200705011508.57220.peper@gentoo.org> <20070501233111.5fd54b7b@maya> <4637BF1A.1010309@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4637BF1A.1010309@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705020047.42172.peper@gentoo.org> Sender: =?UTF-8?B?UGlvdHIgSmFyb3N6ecWEc2tp?= X-Archives-Salt: c11afbcd-d9ec-4b23-948c-a4dcebbfe7dc X-Archives-Hash: f710ef86f34156fdb2efd40c9cd181be On Wednesday 02 of May 2007 00:28:42 Josh Saddler wrote: > Not a knee jerk reaction, just a strong one. One of the key reasons why > mandatory tests were not desired was the fact that sometimes much more > stuff will be installed than what you'd normally get. Exhibit A: > robbat2's message just sent on diradm that normally just needs openldap > with USE=3Dminimal, but building for tests requires all of openldap, > samba, etc. Where did you read that this thread is about forcing tests? That was the bl= ack=20 and white approach and we all know how it failed... The purpose of this=20 discussion is to figure out a compromise between the current state and forc= e=20 all, because neither of them is good. =2D-=20 Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszy=C5=84ski -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list