From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-85750-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFA39138334
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:07:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EF83E0827;
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:07:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2339E07C9
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:07:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com (mail-it0-f42.google.com [209.85.214.42])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: floppym)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AADB6335C8D
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:07:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id p16-v6so2820540itp.1
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BQNSSi/2z47p6iMRF9kG7Tp8j+RGO0dG0RrtsVj5p5EocuOVZh
gaHjKtUtes/ArKkvki+bWAGlhdLgglimDHD8pA0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaAN8fvmnGcWWxWndkXAv2p7hHsIdF2LQ2DWNx3arKyzZesxPG+nnfhTgJSGH8U6X+e3BSg9RLfGWQ1n3eGMDM=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:24ce:: with SMTP id f197-v6mr2148830ita.57.1535130466722;
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180820143433.27556-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <20180820145937.10739-1-mgorny@gentoo.org>
<CADfzvvbsKZJudPMSoOxLYZ8aH+Cbh0Nec3esfN8B-QOkAFod5A@mail.gmail.com>
<1534833968.953.2.camel@gentoo.org> <CADfzvvZ6qtMZ1oKaV8LN3JvazTzR2y4xiJoiz_nhXvPg4o3u5A@mail.gmail.com>
<153FDB15-8D96-4065-AB16-885D1A5DE87E@gentoo.org> <3d0204bf-509b-5cf9-251d-9a689b32db26@gentoo.org>
<CAJ0EP41wF_8V5O=uC6jxJov1C6qhx+XyHGE69mtnRF0sxQQsdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20180825012306.4a9b26a6@katipo2.lan> <CAJ0EP41ZUQ2EDCvHEebHN+HbaAgh2ofVXGo6a-_gkMKz-aondg@mail.gmail.com>
<20180824103754.503494ff439fd53e21497544@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180824103754.503494ff439fd53e21497544@gentoo.org>
From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:07:35 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAJ0EP431VPFmmtoBArstmZxPiO28GsESvh44jzTTOOsX_5qPfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ0EP431VPFmmtoBArstmZxPiO28GsESvh44jzTTOOsX_5qPfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: Improve description of USE=test
To: vdupras@gentoo.org
Cc: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: a5a97a5b-4b1b-4f18-8028-1a5a118bc43f
X-Archives-Hash: 1285df2ae0a2135269a1cdcc1a2c57c0
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:37 AM Virgil Dupras <vdupras@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:23 AM Kent Fredric <kentnl@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:29:29 -0400
> > > Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Setting RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" is generally sufficient.
> > >
> > > But that would require setting that virtually *everything* that has
> > > both tests, and required dependencies for tests.
> > >
> > > Which, in my experience, is practically everything with tests.
> > >
> > > To the point it seems like that should be the *default* mechanic,
> > > not a requirement that everyone pay not to have a randomly broken
> > > package.
> >
> > If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it
> > should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any meaning for the
> > "test" USE flag.
> >
>
> Which is the easiest path, updating the PMS or adding RESTRICT="!test?
> ( test )" to thousands of ebuilds? I don't see how we can realistically
> hope for every developer to cooperate in making sure that their ebuilds
> behave properly in "USE=-test" situation.
Updates to PMS happen infrequently, and generally only introduce
behavioral changes in new EAPIs.
Adding RESTRICT to ebuilds does not need to happen overnight; setting
FEATURES=test still does the right thing for most people, assuming
they haven't done something stupid like setting USE=-test in
make.conf.