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 1IdR3z-0000gO-KA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:48:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l94DcM32014686; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:38:22 GMT Received: from nameserver1.mcve.com (nameserver1.mcve.com [216.155.111.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l94DaVRU012403 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:36:31 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.55] (shop.monetra.com [216.155.111.10]) by nameserver1.mcve.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5941110106 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4704EC5D.9070304@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:36:29 -0400 From: Doug Goldstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] controlling src_test References: <47048D89.8060608@p-static.net> In-Reply-To: <47048D89.8060608@p-static.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: fcc972a3-23ce-4d30-a248-270b15920394 X-Archives-Hash: face58a294785b13828b9711380f52c5 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=test). 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? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list