[gentoo-dev] Can ATs add missing test deps?

[gentoo-dev] Can ATs add missing test deps?

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

It happens every now and then that during ATing, I find that
USE=test should pull in extra deps. This usually is an easy and
not exactly controversial fix.

What's the hive mind's opinion on letting ATs add such deps if:

- Only one level deep, but multiple first-level deps are ok
- The deps themselves are already marked arch/~arch to the same
  level as the package needing them*
- The deps themselves are not humunguous when it comes to
  compile/test times.

* And by this I mean *all* arch/~arch keywords the base package
has, not just the one(s) the AT currently cares about.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Tobias

-- 
panic("floppy: Port bolixed.");
        linux-2.2.16/include/asm-sparc/floppy.h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can ATs add missing test deps?

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:22:01 +0200
Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi! 
> 
> It happens every now and then that during ATing, I find that
> USE=test should pull in extra deps. This usually is an easy and
> not exactly controversial fix.
> 


+1

I dont think anyone should be prevented from committing trivial fixes :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can ATs add missing test deps?

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> It happens every now and then that during ATing, I find that
>> USE=test should pull in extra deps. This usually is an easy and
>> not exactly controversial fix.
>
> +1
>
> I dont think anyone should be prevented from committing trivial fixes :)

+1 from me too.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can ATs add missing test deps?

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Montag, 6. Juni 2016, 10:22:01 schrieb Tobias Klausmann:
> Hi!
> 
> It happens every now and then that during ATing, I find that
> USE=test should pull in extra deps. This usually is an easy and
> not exactly controversial fix.
> 
> What's the hive mind's opinion on letting ATs add such deps if:
> 
> - Only one level deep, but multiple first-level deps are ok
> - The deps themselves are already marked arch/~arch to the same
>   level as the package needing them*
> - The deps themselves are not humunguous when it comes to
>   compile/test times.
> 
> * And by this I mean *all* arch/~arch keywords the base package
> has, not just the one(s) the AT currently cares about.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Tobias

+1

In the rare case when something shouldn't be added for whatever reason, the 
maintainer can just leave a comment in the ebuild...


- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=WKl3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----