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 1HjDW1-0001PY-Bu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 12:01:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l42BxJO6031708; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:59:19 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l42Bv9ZY029124 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:57:09 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEA08D30C for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 13:27:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21500-08 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 13:27:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from snowflake (unknown [62.6.163.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85D18D305 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 13:27:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:56:40 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tests Message-ID: <20070502125640.20201127@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <1178070677.1136.23.camel@athena.fprintf.net> References: <200705011508.57220.peper@gentoo.org> <20070502013220.7a3ae9a4@sheridan.genone.homeip.net> <1178063216.1136.6.camel@athena.fprintf.net> <20070502011203.4a6f12c8@maya> <1178070677.1136.23.camel@athena.fprintf.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_59HodlafviSqg3p0qbSsOfU; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: ec40f698-c836-4a07-bee0-f8516d3d064d X-Archives-Hash: b9eff10f6d0a8a78dc5f0621e5c8a8a7 --Sig_59HodlafviSqg3p0qbSsOfU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:51:17 -0400 Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > Sure, but now you're requiring me to go through all that extra work > if I want any of the benefits of EAPI=3D1. It is likely that EAPI-1 will be stricter in quite a few areas... > Or, third option, is that everyone marks their packages as "low > priority tests, don't run them" just to switch to EAPI=3D1, and we have > no gain over what we have now. No, even that's a gain. It means that arch teams *know* when a test failure isn't a problem. But 'everyone' won't do that. > I think this thread in general overestimates the value of tests in > packages. To maintainers, possibly. Not to arch teams. The way test suites are now makes arch teams' jobs a lot harder than they should be. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_59HodlafviSqg3p0qbSsOfU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGOHx696zL6DUtXhERAsPYAKCkoLS1zNyMHlcz+N+Iq58inGBqBwCbBR4e sITVMizf0FnbHDfbQJEo/Tw= =MdQ9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_59HodlafviSqg3p0qbSsOfU-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list