On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:31:01PM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:14:52PM -0400, Julio Merino wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> > >> > >> TL;DR > >> ----- > >> > >> I plan to turn the TESTS src.conf knob ON by default on Tuesday once I > >> have been able to perform enough sanity-checks of the build and all of > >> them pass. > >> > >> The impact of this is that the FreeBSD Test Suite (see tests(7)) will > >> be built and installed by default under /usr/tests/ along with the > >> private atf libraries and binaries. There should be no other changes > >> and this should be transparent to everyone. > >> > >> If this happens to break the world in any way, we can trivially roll > >> the change back to fix the fallout. > >> > >> > >> Some details > >> ------------ > >> > >> TESTS was never intended to be disabled by default. However, the > >> original patches that were committed months ago related to this > >> feature broke the build and the easiest way out (instead of reverting > >> the commits) was to set the knob to disabled. Unfortunately, it stayed > >> that way even after the discovered problems were fixed. > >> > >> I am confident enough now that we have ironed out all major issues > >> that this might introduce, so it is about time to enable TESTS by > >> default again in HEAD. > >> > >> The benefits of this are that 1) we allow end users (especially > >> consumers of binary releases!) to run the tests out of the box, as it > >> has always been intended; and 2) we will be able to run the official > >> release builds through testing via Jenkins, instead of having to issue > >> custom builds. > > This is very weird and unprobable. Users cannot care less about running > > the test suite, they use OS to run applications. IMO enabling installation > > of the stuff that bloats the system but have no practical use for the > > system consumer should not be allowed by default. > > I disagree. Sure, some users won't care. Probably even most users > won't care. But some of our users are active supporters of FreeBSD. > They evangelize, they file PRs, and they help other users on the > forums. Those users will run the tests. Some of them will find bugs > that we didn't, because they'll be using different hardware and > different configurations. Plus, shipping a test suite exudes an aura > of quality (if the tests pass, that is). So I think that we should > install the tests, but in a separate installation set, just like > games.
I would agree with your arguments, and in fact not bother with the proposal at all, if most systems were installed using installer. I am very much confident that significant part of the population is installed or updated using make build/installworld. If somebody cares to run tests, she certainly cares enough to be able to turn the knob on. Otherwise, the tests take sometimes precious space on / or /usr, for nothing. Could somebody point out a popular software system that spills the tests or other developer-only[*] stuff into the production install ? I immediately remember the perl and its modules which have very extensive test suite, but the test suite is not installed. [*] As is, developers of the system, not developers utilizing the product as the base.
Description: PGP signature