Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] [Fedora-packaging] Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:39:08PM +0200, Igor Raits wrote: > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:10 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: > > Hi, > > I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the > > running of tests during RPM build (in the %check section of a spec > > file). > > > > I see a lot of packages already having %bcond's or other macro > > definitions to archieve this, but each package has their own way, > > there's no real standard. Thus you have to first look into the spec, > > locate the appropriate %bcond or macro name and only then you can > > disable the tests. > > > > I would like to propose two approaches: > > > > (a) Add a *SHOULD* rule to the guidelines that specifies what is the > > preferred way to conditionalize the tests. > > > > (b) Or, if that's too strong, mention in the guidelines the common > > methods that are being used (e.g. %bcond tests and %bcond check) so > > that > > new packagers have something to use. > > > > What do you think? > > I'd like to have this finally be implemented in > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316. That way it > would be simply rpmbuild --nocheck or define %_without_check 1 which > would skip %check section entirely. That's roughly the same I implemented in ALT rpm-build back in 2009, see http://git.altlinux.org/gears/r/..git?p=rpm-build.git;a=commitdiff;h=23e6847c -- ldv ___ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list Rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] [Fedora-packaging] Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:10 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: > Hi, > I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the > running of tests during RPM build (in the %check section of a spec > file). > > I see a lot of packages already having %bcond's or other macro > definitions to archieve this, but each package has their own way, > there's no real standard. Thus you have to first look into the spec, > locate the appropriate %bcond or macro name and only then you can > disable the tests. > > I would like to propose two approaches: > > (a) Add a *SHOULD* rule to the guidelines that specifies what is the > preferred way to conditionalize the tests. > > (b) Or, if that's too strong, mention in the guidelines the common > methods that are being used (e.g. %bcond tests and %bcond check) so > that > new packagers have something to use. > > What do you think? I'd like to have this finally be implemented in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316. That way it would be simply rpmbuild --nocheck or define %_without_check 1 which would skip %check section entirely. For now, all Rust crates just have `%bcond_without check` so using `-- without check` works just fine there. Since this would be more generic thing to the RPM ecosystem, adding rpm-ecosystem@ to the copy. > Tomas > ___ > packaging mailing list -- packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > packaging-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org - -- Igor Raits -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl7aWQwACgkQEV1auJxc Hh6dyBAAmbJSCU0wtuET7vuXVVIeg7BeosaQF25/VoMwTSYGH3h36S9Gci9BRBgs yuque1uGnBaUQ74fsxBIMgGzapd73TvEY1M8PNnzHF3Miz0i0FgVhwnw3S9jvrTT aGqln2rE3L5jH0alII6pNOIqA67yPlYfb5+JtRazeO0KTarZuGOdemJsp6ONEKQS 5doQid6yrQvaUj90Xl2VpRY6goXx5FOQLDPb9DlaWlQDvBcVBJz5oaJ/VyxqCnC2 ObyLjMB9AXq+pBiot/50QDLTUCxKOkro1siBPxfswNCjpwRy6vDp6dyczHyQkhJ8 zFAHJQPWAr870WU3FMO/FirTv9yAqY6Je8jB+3EdxjzNuyBMTOT6Iq6r8Su/yxeq FcvDvUhlJ0OtWM8PfiIkaKpiSB9rzpuuM5hagPYqznLbqu5AeuTqAKojSyLbkK7Z 7fS+qABernfYqAVOlq7DkTaETh/0sAuIxhtwWXbbhz7vFPpbnsPdnyfUUGzFoIdT LBFnMOBQF0q4woTAhQRHez+VEH4ndiqZQGdYL8AJ9FtKeMZwwWmvl/r3ki/Hr5Yf bqETizKe4XBu5DxPRNN3+0RSi+TIXX11VeHtxIWeuGGErgdqq4EZkBfnmZlTb3/N gA8/3DUl9B4XRzGjnzq0AahOfIW1wNObh4pzlmoGN2jrG5odKPM= =JCw+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list Rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
