Hi! On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 23:16:39 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > The "noinsttests" name is inspired by previous discussion (on a bug > > asking for more <!nocheck> in some package, if I remember correctly?), > > and by ginsttest-runner in the gnome-desktop-testing package[1], which > > is a test-runner for GNOME's installed-tests initiative. > > Would it make sense to mirror the "check" part of "nocheck" and use > "noinstchecks" instead? On the other hand, if I were to choose the name > of "nocheck" today, I'd probably call it "notest".
That was exactly the first thing that came to my mind too when seeing the proposed name. I think it would be important to have internal consistency here to avoid further confusion, even though the build-profile and build-option uses a different name to what we have decided to use in other parts of the stack that are dealing with test suites. «noinstcheck» would also map equally to autotools «make installcheck», in the same way «nocheck» maps to «make check». > > If people strongly prefer build profiles to be singular, then "noinsttest" > > would also be fine. > > I think it's less about singular, but more about consistency with other > profiles such as "nocheck" which happens to not be called "nochecks". > "nodoc" vs "nodocs" likewise. This also follows from the above internal consitency angle. Otherwise, the proposal sounds good to me. Thanks, Guillem
