On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 12:17 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote: > <snip> > > > > > Er, no, I'm explaining why enforcing src_test for EAPI 1 will be > > > > helpful for an awful lot of Gentoo developers. > > > > > > except that you back the tree into a corner that it cannot come out of > > > > Huh? Not at all. If a package can't use its test suite, the ebuild can > > set RESTRICT=test. > > > > > > Please refrain from that kind of comment. It doesn't help anyone. > > > > > > the answer is the same: talk to the QA team to get the tree into a > > > state where having src_test enabled by default is feasible and then > > > the QA team can change the profile > > > > That isn't going to happen any time soon. There are too many changes > > and the impact of turning it on is too high. A gradual migration via > > EAPI is much safer and much more useful. > > > > > enforcing via spec is the wrong way to go here ... spec is for > > > defining how the ebuilds work, not for forcing policy down peoples > > > throats > > > > And whether or not src_test is called is part of how ebuilds work. > > Policy is whether or not src_test is required to do something in all > > situations, or whether it can be RESTRICTed out as necessary. > > </snip> > > First off...wow...long time since I've been active...so if anyone wants > to discount my comments based on that alone feel free. I'm trying to get > back in the game and I think a few e-mails as participation might be > best...hopefully you'll actually see me online soon. > > Now on to the real topic at hand. For src_test I see things this way. >
Welcome back to the real (Gentoo, that is) world. :) Good summary of the situation, I think (although I've snipped it since everyone's read it once.) --- snip --- > Just my 2 cents... > > --Dan Regards, -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
