From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MvUp2-0002G8-Cn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:36:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 010A0E0CC3; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:36:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dev.gentooexperimental.org (dev.gentooexperimental.org [81.93.240.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8CCE0CC3 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lolcathost.localnet (xdsl-78-34-138-114.netcologne.de [78.34.138.114]) by dev.gentooexperimental.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058877143FA for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:36:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: USE=qa-test Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:36:47 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.90 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.3.70; x86_64; ; ) References: <20091006203818.2ae06242@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200910071336.47842.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c6b5c0e8-aa16-494a-a50a-459c10173006 X-Archives-Hash: 96885338834c6ac53df251ca88daf644 On Wednesday 07 October 2009 13:13:31 Duncan wrote: > Ryan Hill posted on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:38:18 -0600 as excerpted: > > I'd like to propose a new USE flag, qa-test or a better name, to handle > > these cases in a consistent way. This would give us a way to > > differentiate between tests that everyone should run and tests that only > > devs and arch-testers would be interested in, making enabling > > FEATURES=test by default in a future EAPI a little more palatable. > > Use of this flag would be up to the maintainer, of course. > > I'm confused. I'm sure there's a good reason for the different proposal > here, but I don't know what it is, and I'd like to know: > > Previously there was discussion of RESTRICT=test, to be set for just such > "user probably doesn't want this on" type situations. That force-disables tests. I'm not aware of an override for it, RESTRICT="test" basically means "don't bother with tests, they are suicidal" > The proposal then > was to turn FEATURES=test on by default for a specific EAPI, ... which is never more than a proposal by people not fixing the packages. Just FYI, building gnome in a chroot I hit 9 test-failures out of ~150 packages. That quota of failure is roughly stable all across the tree, so unless someone starts fixing the ~1000 failures it's just not viable. Oh, and someone needs to maintain and forward-port the fixes. And someone needs to send me some hardware so I can find the time to run all those tests - on my quadcore boost takes ~4h with tests, which is just prohibitive. > and then as > packages moved to it, they'd add RESTRICT=test where appropriate (with a > comment documenting why, of course), and anything of that EAPI or later > that didn't have RESTRICT=test would automatically get built for and have > its tests run by default. Feel free to have FEATURES="test" enabled in a dev profile or in your make.conf. Forcing it on users is just insane. > Now I see this proposal for making it a USE flag, which may or may not be > more appropriate, I don't know. I do know I'd love to see someone > explain the differences. It's a bit more selective. RESTRICT is a global "no, this is broken", the new useflag (or more fine-grained restrict?) says "there are tests, but they might make things explode" so that those that do want the tests can easily use them without making users sad puppied. And if there's anything we don't want it is more sad puppies.