-----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."