On 5 March 2014 10:23, Alexander Todorov <atodorov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
На 4.03.2014 20:36, Mat Booth написа:You are forgetting everyone that is not so familiar with Java.
On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:Agreed, it seems like busy work to me that adds very little value to anyone
3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
%check with a comment why the test suite is not executed (e.g. requires
network) or why it is executed in %build.
Commenting why tests are skipped is a very good thing, but I don't like
the idea of adding empty %check sections to my 250+ packages just for
the sake of documenting that tests are ran in %build "because that's
what we do in Java world".
familiar with Java packages.
Also I didn't ask you (as a package owner) to do it explicitly, I've asked you to accept a patch which should be much more easier.See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072417#c4 to avoid repeating myself.
Wouldn't it be easier to change the whatever
tool is generating this report to accommodate for this? "If package invokes
%mvn_build then don't expect there to be a %check section" seems like a
reasonable heuristic to me.
Even if the tool uses heuristics to exclude some groups of packages it will not be obvious why there's no %check section. It could be because tests are executed in %build, because they need root or network access and are disabled, because the test framework used is not available (see DHCP) or anything else.
If the tool excludes a package based on a heuristic, it can also tell you *why* it was excluded (the heuristic was added for a reason!) A comment in the SPEC is unnecessary duplication of information at that point.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
