On 19/01/11 at 12:29 +0000, Alex Young wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:27 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 18/01/11 at 12:26 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > <snip> > > > Well, building a package should always (in a perfect world) include > > > running its tests. Of course, build dependencies can be huge. But I > > > don't think it is _that_ bad. And assuming we all build using > > > pbuilder/cowbuilder (right? No, I don't always - but it is a factor > > > that would push me to the right practices!), it would basically just > > > mean a minor inconvenience. > > > > Sorry if it wasn't clear in my mail. The problem is that we are running > > into a dependency loop: > > package A requires B to run its test suite > > package B requires A to run its test suite > > which one should we package first, and how? > > The only way I can think that this situation could evolve is if the > versions of A in each case here are different. Have you got an example > of this?
Simple example: rspec-mocks requires rspec-expectations to run the test suite rspec-expectations requires rspec-mocks to run the test suite So, we could package them separately without running the test suite, and then enable the test suite later. > > The only way to break the loop is to avoid running the test suite when > > we first upload A, then upload B with the test suite enabled, then > > upload A. > > Presumably this is a problem the CPAN Testers have solved somehow? Once the core libs have been packaged, it's likely that loops get more rare. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110119133321.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info
