-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jun 27, at 20:45 (+0300), 'Ville Skytt�wrote:
Can you come up with a generic case where running the test suite before
doing the staged install would be useful? I cannot at the moment.
Hm, my mileage varies a lot on this, as I would rephrase it quite the
opposite: what would be the generic cases where a staged install is
necessary for running its test suite? I cannot at the moment :))
But anyway, I'll answer your question: perl modules (and obviously not
only). Remember the adviced way of install a module:
perl Makefile.PL
make
make test
make install
^ as you see, "install" _after_ "test"
I could bring you more examples (OFC, not perl related - mysql e.g.),
but I'm sure it's not really necessary. Better - risking to repeat
myself - I'll try to explain again my point/opinion: "%check" at the end
of "%install" is GOOD. I argue that its current use is BAD, as in using
it for "make test", which testing IMHO has nothing to do with the staged
installation.
Now, I'll explain (again) why this testing after install bothers me
alot: because I cannot easily repeat testing, previously done with:
rpmbuild -bc --short-circuit pkg.spec
Using "make test" in "%check" nowadays just makes my delay (much) longer,
as you surely know what a PITA currently are the various scripts run in
_spec_install_* (e.g. the dependencies checking).
So, for the last time, please don't understand me wrong - I'm not
against the existence of a "check" script, but against the "policy" to
use that block for "make test" & co.
b) What is the "easy" way to disable %check? "--define 'check exit 0'"
doesn't sound as "easy" as e.g. "--without check".
Right, but it doesn't have to be easy :)
Sorry, I'm on a different side again, but I surely understand (and
sometimes even agree) that enforced rules should more seldom drive into
sloppy development comparing to systems/rules/policies promoting self
discipline. Anyway, I'll stop here with this, I prefer not to get into
advocacy stuff.
If a test suite of a package does or requires something that is not
appropriate (taking into account all situations where it might be run
in, generic/minimal build roots and personal workstations or desktops
etc.), report a bug against the package.
Hm, as long as the packager provides clarifying BuildRequires, I see no
problem with that.
Mileages vary, but I'd suggest at least running the test suite after
%install, no matter what way you choose.
OK, I understand now that I failed explaining my premises in my previous
message. I hope now you understood that I'm NOT trying to avoid testing,
but just trying to ease packagers' jobs.
cheers.
- --
Marius Feraru http://www.altblue.com/
"It isn't easy being the parent of a three-years-old.
However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody
around the house who understands computers."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFCwaqYn0ZKufYp8iURAnErAJ9h5yyr/OWOPs0DBS8/VH6O38Re2wCfcI7K
4znwPlVNUAX2KKr4VpMGdcY=
=9yZg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
