On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 18:36 +0000, Mat Booth wrote: > On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > > > 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". > > > > > Agreed, it seems like busy work to me that adds very little value to anyone > familiar with Java packages. 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. It was my suggestion initially, and I think it's a decent idea just from a general 'legibility of spec to outside readers' perspective. From that perspective, though, it may reasonable to assume an outside reader knows about how tests are run in Javaland, especially if this is documented as a general thing somewhere in the Java packaging guidelines. I wasn't suggesting it as an idiotic, inflexible Policy Requirement, just as a thing to consider. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
