On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:07:26 +0200 Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dnia 27 kwietnia 2017 23:42:34 CEST, Alexis Ballier > <[email protected]> napisał(a): > >On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:14:13 +0200 > >Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> b. those tests can easily be enabled, and that fact is recorded > >> in the installed package metadata, > >> > >> c. the flag can easily be used in RESTRICT="" constraint to easily > >> disable all the tests. > > > > > >I see that as a rather important disadvantage. Why would we want to > >record that in VDB ? > > To know whether the tests were run. I don't think it belongs there. Unless running tests or not makes a difference on the installed package, in which case it is a bug in the package. Remember: test useflag is a hack that portage auto-enables when running tests and is not taken into account with --newuse. Plus, I've learnt recently there are some subtle differences between portage and PMS, like you have to manually feed RESTRICT="test? ( test )" in order for the desired behavior to be PMS compliant. > > > > > >> What do you think? Any other ideas? > > > >why not simply a new RESTRICT value ? > > How would you apply it to part of the tests? How would you prevent > users from running networked tests by default? Running part of the tests can get messy with RESTRICT, indeed. Maybe a more manual approach could work then: If ENABLE_NETWORK_TESTS variable is set in environment then run networked tests otherwise display a warning.
