Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for changes for the next EAPI version

[Pallav Agarwal <pallavagarwal07@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1648 bytes --]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 17 May 2016 at 20:46, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> And as for my pet peeve, tests that are known to fail, can we
> >> also annotate that somehow so I don't waste hours running a test
> >> suite that gives zero signal on whether I should add the stable
> >> keyword? Even a one-line hin in the stabilization request would
> >> be nice. As it is, I keep a list of known-to-fail packages and my
> >> testing machinery tells me to not bother with FEATURES=test in
> >> those case.
> >
> > IMO: Tests that are "expected to fail" should be killed.
> >
>
> That makes sense, though ironically the only specific hypothetical use
> case to come up so far was an example of just this situation.  A
> package is broken in stable, and a test was proposed to detect if
> future stable candidates fix the flaw.  There would be no point in
> delaying stabilization of a package that contains the same error as
> the current stable version.
>
> I don't see any harm in adding support for automated Gentoo-specific
> tests, but I am skeptical of how much use they'll actually get.  After
> all, we started off with the statement that this is for situations
> where upstream doesn't provide test suites, and if upstream can't be
> bothered, why would we expect a distro maintainer to care more?
>
> --
> Rich
>
> Because we are already expecting an arch tester to conduct tests for the
package. And knowing what to test is something I expect to come more
easily from the maintainer.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2425 bytes --]