https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291200 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #3) > (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #1) > > (We already > > have the Business::ISBN BuildRequire conditionalized by %perl_bootstrap, but > > for some reason, the run Require is not. That does not make sense for me.) > > Omitting a BuildRequire during bootstrapping generally results in fewer > tests being run but the resulting binary package is exactly the same as it > would have been with the BuildRequire present. > > On the other hand, omitting a run Require results in a different binary > package, and hence different buildroots for every package that is built > using the bootstrapped package. So you'd want to rebuild all of those > packages too post-bootstrap to make sure all their tests ran successfully, > which would potentially extend the bootstrap process quite significantly. > I know (*). But what's the purpose of omitting some tests? Especially on perl_bootstrap? With current perl-URI.spec you will get binary package that cannot be installed either, so it should not have any effect on build graph when bootstrapping. (* Pure theoretically, having installed additional packages at build time should be idempotent. That's what I expect from good build script.) > I think it might be worthwhile to disable the image comparison test: > https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=100294 Ah. yet another instance of the failure. That would be probably the simplest fix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
