From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D4E215852A for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F73E2BC048; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB132BC035 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix, from userid 2212) id 5792A340C8A; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55502340C77 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:40:06 +0000 (UTC) From: Andrey Grozin To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling optional, expensive variants of test suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <87zfplr9g0.fsf@gentoo.org> 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: dfb329ab-6787-4d87-b4bb-2026c1d4ce1f X-Archives-Hash: c6ffb41013d08744423d37ae2aacc525 On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Joonas Niilola wrote: > On 9.8.2024 18.40, Sam James wrote: >> Some packages like libffi, gcc support extended, slower versions of >> their testsuites. In the past, I've seen both USE="expensive-tests" (I >> think) and USE="test-full" (used in a few places in-tree atm) for this. >> >> I sort of hate both suggestions but I'm open to what people think is >> best, with a view to then making it a global USE flag then? Thoughts? > Count NSS in that list too! I've made a patch locally that uses > "tests-full" use flag, so I guess I'd vote for "test-full" to stay > consistent. Some tests of sympy take very long. They were commented out in the ebuild. I'd like to have an easy way to run all tests. Andrey