On 6/9/20 3:01 PM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:56 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:35 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
The proposal was to optionally disable test. When somebody asked
why,
the answer was bootstrapping. But we know how to
Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:56 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:35 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
> >
> > The proposal was to optionally disable test. When somebody asked
> > why,
> > the answer was bootstrapping. But we know how to handle
> > bootstrapping.
> > So
Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:35 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
>
> The proposal was to optionally disable test. When somebody asked why,
> the answer was bootstrapping. But we know how to handle
> bootstrapping.
> So shouldn't somebody spend time changing the test conditionals to
> bootstrapping
Dne 09. 06. 20 v 13:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> On 09. 06. 20 12:21, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> That won't be different for what was the original question here, i.e.
>> conditionally disable tests. bconds are what we have for better or
>> worse.
>>
>> And really, this seems about bootstrapping not
On 09. 06. 20 12:21, Vít Ondruch wrote:
That won't be different for what was the original question here, i.e.
conditionally disable tests. bconds are what we have for better or worse.
And really, this seems about bootstrapping not disabling tests, which
are not completely different, but nobody
Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 12:21 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
> Dne 09. 06. 20 v 12:12 Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a):
> > Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 12:08 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
> > > Just FTR, we have bootstrapping guidelines
> > >
> > >
Dne 09. 06. 20 v 12:12 Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a):
> Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 12:08 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
>> Just FTR, we have bootstrapping guidelines
>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping
>>
> Those suffer from
> 1. the horrible bcond logic inversion
Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 12:08 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit :
>
> Just FTR, we have bootstrapping guidelines
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping
>
Those suffer from
1. the horrible bcond logic inversion that trips pretty much everyone
all the time.
2. the
Dne 05. 06. 20 v 17:24 Tomas Orsava napsal(a):
> On 6/5/20 4:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:38:03PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>> On 05. 06. 20 16:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> Hi,
> I
Oooh, that would be perfect!
Tomas
On 6/8/20 10:57 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
May be https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256 does the
trick. Comments welcome!
Florian
On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Igor Raits wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 5:48 PM Nicolas Mailhot via devel
wrote:
> Some language ecosystems have very low quality unit tests ...
I'd discourage the "some test suites are bad, so let's disable them
all '' attitude.
Some very small and very stable testsuites may still be beneficial to
be run every
May be https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256 does the
trick. Comments welcome!
Florian
On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Igor Raits wrote:
> -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
On 05. 06. 20 16:45, Tomas Orsava wrote:
On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:28:39AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Or just a new option to rpmbuild that skips %check ?
It exists already: rpmbuild --nocheck.
It's not wired into the rest of the stack - eg. you
Le vendredi 05 juin 2020 à 15:46 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit :
>
> For the RISC-V bootstrap we used rpmbuild directly (before Koji and
> its dependencies had been ported), and added --nocheck. However once
> Koji was working we built packages properly with checks enabled.
>
> How often do
On 6/5/20 4:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:38:03PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 06. 20 16:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:38:03PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 05. 06. 20 16:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +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
On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:28:39AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Or just a new option to rpmbuild that skips %check ?
It exists already: rpmbuild --nocheck.
It's not wired into the rest of the stack - eg. you cannot start a
Koji build with checks
On 6/5/20 4:26 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +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
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:28:39AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Or just a new option to rpmbuild that skips %check ?
It exists already: rpmbuild --nocheck.
It's not wired into the rest of the stack - eg. you cannot start a
Koji build with checks disabled. IMHO that's a good thing, although
-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
On 05. 06. 20 16:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +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
Or just a new option to rpmbuild that skips %check ?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 5, 2020, at 10:11, 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
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
