From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IdRyr-0003W4-4f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:47:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l94Eacq0028295; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:36:38 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.168]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l94EXJo5023388 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:33:19 GMT Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so358200ugf for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=NyHP6yqVPEu1SlqFOranDBLRl/Cv2K44WHBC6nM9W+M=; b=gefReeMjHoF9dERychaiba13CLmgzlkmbCeghEQqGRsAFlPSUwlB1m2a5yCm3xClQdC7ICihC4MioZ1/7D2K4YrezTx3/5AgmY95BHw2fI8LVNj9PQgrY9SHGZE7VeA4KP+sNOyHkjbCpsc2KPLjdJUSgk+k4KQ4iE8zmglpt9I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=U0F4aOwnleRE0sHQXhCdHcaKOP498BpFH8TlbU1Yre8buYulGsXxV2julQrbtponiNwIklMsSAfUVMKkbvz21WRP2h1CXzi9Znrhh0hplMqABN6sCdbfeZejbyjQzqx4kn5NlXURK8kpbCepkk5AaUbe6+VVfVioLmLvCmsNrAw= Received: by 10.78.130.6 with SMTP id c6mr958622hud.1191508398582; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emachine.mpa.com ( [66.19.244.190]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 37sm106725hub.2007.10.04.07.33.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:33:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Anderson To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] controlling src_test Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:36:33 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <47048D89.8060608@p-static.net> <4704EC5D.9070304@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4704EC5D.9070304@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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1504141.AY5LPnQxpK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200710041036.38342.gentoofan23@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 428c3bcd-1fb5-4821-955a-b56e2e5e5d63 X-Archives-Hash: 6ab597166305fe04e5ff25582ef36451 --nextPart1504141.AY5LPnQxpK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 04 October 2007 09:36:29 Doug Goldstein wrote: > Ravi Pinjala wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > There are several packages in portage (and even in base-system) that > > > > fail > > > > > in src_test when userpriv/usersandbox is enabled or disabled. That > > > > is, some > > > > > testsuites fail when run as root and some fail if not run as root. > > > > > > I'd like a simple consistent way to mark or handle these packages > > > > without > > > > > disabling tests altogether (RESTRICT=3Dtest). As mentioned recently, > > > > checking > > > > > ${FEATURES} in an ebuild is frowned upon, and it doesn't seem right > > > > to handle > > > > > this on a per-ebuild basis. How would something like this best be > > > > implemented? > > > > > A split up RESTRICT (test_userpriv/test_nouserpriv)? test.eclass? > > > > Something > > > > > else? Looking at the bigger picture, are there any other situations > > > > where > > > > > finer-grained control over the test system would be helpful? > > > > > > While I'm on the subject, I also thought it would be cool to have > > > > the option to > > > > > not die on a src_test failure, but instead to dump the log file and > > > > continue > > > > > on to the install phase. I know this can be done per-ebuild, but > > > > it'd be > > > > > a useful global option. > > > > I, for one, would like to be able to control whether or not to run tests > > that take a huge amount of time to run. Some test suites are > > ridiculously comprehensive, and if we could have an option to disable > > only those, or even run a reduced test suite, that'd be pretty neat. > > > > --Ravi > > Who and what determines if a test is overly comprehensive and takes too > long to run? I think most everybody agrees that boost's tests are overly comprehensive. = As=20 for others like mysql, a long test may be necessary to ensure everything i= s=20 working properly. =2D-=20 2.6.22-gentoo-r8 --nextPart1504141.AY5LPnQxpK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHBPpyF6yMcaBxwHkRApMuAJ0bFe/8NvbJomhzw8o7ljzyGUwUGQCfcTi2 0UnMd/j1eR1+4LKFrDOI/S0= =j6RM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1504141.AY5LPnQxpK-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list