On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:22:52PM +0100, Lukáš Hrázký wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 11:59 +0100, Victor Toso wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:45:33AM +0100, Lukáš Hrázký wrote: > > > > That tests are not enabled by default. If we enable it by default > > > > here I would expect to do the same for other Spice components. > > > > > > Ok, but I'm somewhat confused here. Enabling the tests is during > > > packaging - you run `make check`. Which means we are talking about... > > > Fedora packaging? Or am I getting something wrong? > > > > I'm talking about releases and the configure script with default > > options. Today we don't have tests enabled by default in our > > tarballs. > > > > 1) wget https://www.spice-space.org/download/gtk/spice-gtk-LATEST.tar.bz2 > > 2) tar -xvf spice-gtk-LATEST.tar.bz2 > > 3) cd spice-gtk-0.34 > > 4) ./configure > > 5) make > > # no tests, no extra dependencies. > > Thanks for the example, made it clear. I think you are mistaken here, > though: > > wget https://www.spice-space.org/download/gtk/spice-gtk-LATEST.tar.bz2 > tar -xvf spice-gtk-LATEST.tar.bz2 > cd spice-gtk-0.34 > ./configure > make check > > (the only difference being calling `make check` at the end) > > Here you have the tests. For spice-common (submodule) not spice-gtk. For spice-gtk, you need --enable-static and then, yes, make check will run tests for it. > the tests. Many packaging tools automatically detect there is a make > check target and call it at the appropriate point during the packaging. > > So you don't need to explicitly enable the tests in the tarball in any > way. The only issue, which we are discussing here, are extra testing > dependencies, that the tests may have and that you check for in > configure. > > So if someone builds the package and does not intend to run the tests, > the configure script may still require him to install the tests > dependencies. > > And as I break it down here for myself as well, I think I was wrong > with my previous argumentation for the different behaviour based on > presence of Catch in the system. Because the make check target will be > there anyway, it will just be broken if the dependency isn't there. > Correct? So in the unlikely case I'm not missing anything anymore, I > suppose Christophe's suggestion is ok. Sorry for the noise :) Yes, warning is fine by me too.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel