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 1IdWo3-0001QS-5B for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:56:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l94JkJVs007356; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:46:19 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l94JiOco004997 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:44:24 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD936504C for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:44:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.039 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EaqN++hDw2+f for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B25650C3 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IdVlp-0006FV-N0 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:50:01 +0000 Received: from static24-72-113-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.113.196]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:50:01 +0000 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-113-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:50:01 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: controlling src_test Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:39:23 -0600 Message-ID: References: <47048D89.8060608@p-static.net> <4704FDDA.402@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-113-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070923) In-Reply-To: <4704FDDA.402@gentoo.org> Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l94JkJXb007356 X-Archives-Salt: e0453080-f4bb-41d4-a3e5-f8a8d1343168 X-Archives-Hash: f19f75844baea92f4772f7de5cb7f449 R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote: > Ravi Pinjala a =C3=83=C2=A9crit : >> I, for one, would like to be able to control whether or not to run tes= ts >> 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. >=20 > We've already had this discussion before [1] and there is no > one-size-fits-all solution for tagging tests. >=20 > Ryan's plan only proposes to enable/disable tests based on whether they > can run inside a sandbox. That much is doable. Trying to quantify the > time a test suite will take to complete is impossible : different > arches, vastly different CPU clock speeds, same for HDDs sizes and > speeds, ... is impossible. I usually disable tests on a per-package basis using /etc/portage/env entries. dirtyepic@tycho ~ $ cat /etc/portage/env/sci-libs/fftw NEWFEATURES=3D for f in ${FEATURES}; do if [[ ! $f =3D=3D "test" ]]; then NEWFEATURES=3D"${NEWFEATURES} $f" fi done FEATURES=3D"${NEWFEATURES}" --=20 fonts / wxWindows / gcc-porting / treecleaners EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662) --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list