Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 02:11 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
I'd like to suggest we make FEATURES=test (and therefore USE=test) the
default behaviour, rather than the opt-in we currently have. Far too
many packages fail their test phase.
I'm all for making more use of features like test and
On Saturday 05 August 2006 11:05, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:18:40 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Give me some numbers on how many things still fail with that enabled
because I would be concerned if the number is too high.
I don't have numbers, but if you
On Saturday 05 August 2006 18:07, Tim Yamin wrote:
Agreed. It may be better to instead have a FORCE=test on certain
ebuilds (mainly sci-* stuff where you want to be sure the numbers are
coming out correctly) -- adding FEATURES=test to the default set
will cause serious breakage and will take
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:18:40 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Give me some numbers on how many things still fail with that enabled
because I would be concerned if the number is too high.
I don't have numbers, but if you have FEATURES=test set yourself you
should know how many fail.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 02:39:16 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 02:11 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
At the very least, ebuild maintainers and ATs should be running with
tests switched on. If the tests are known to fail then the ebuild
can either
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:25:17 -0700
Joshua Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I agree that it would be nice to see more
people using test and collision-protect I don't think its something we
should enable at this point in time till we have many packages working
correctly with the feature.
Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 11:19 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 02:39:16 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 02:11 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
At the very least, ebuild maintainers and ATs should be running
with tests switched on. If the
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
* gettext
* tar
That makes _4_ system packages. Before I would consider making
FEATURES=test a default, I would add least want the system
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if anyone is interested in my opinion, but I'll dump it on
you anyway. :-)
IMO devs should be working with collision-protect sandbox strict
stricter test userpriv but let's not get too excited ;)
ACK. I also agree with the general idea to
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:14:17 +0200
Sascha Geschwandtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So right now, I'd like to see collision-protect sandbox strict
included in the default FEATUREs.
sandbox and strict are already default for a long time.
Marius
--
Public Key at
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sandbox and strict are already default for a long time.
Not in the selinux profiles (sandbox is missing there). Regarding strict,
I just found out it's in the base profile, so you are of course correct.
But maybe I'm overlooking something else.
Well, I
Sascha Geschwandtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not in the selinux profiles (sandbox is missing there).
No, I'm wrong here either. Sorry for the noise.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 12:57 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
* gettext
* tar
That makes _4_ system packages. Before I would consider
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:14:17 +0200
Sascha Geschwandtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So right now, I'd like to see collision-protect sandbox strict
included in the default FEATUREs.
sandbox and strict are already default for a long time.
Not 100% true. Sandbox has been
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:29:48 -0400
Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:14:17 +0200
Sascha Geschwandtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So right now, I'd like to see collision-protect sandbox strict
included in the default FEATUREs.
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 02:26:16AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I'd like to suggest we make FEATURES=test (and therefore USE=test) the
default behaviour, rather than the opt-in we currently have. Far too
many packages fail their test phase.
Sure everyone likes to watch
On Saturday 05 August 2006 09:29, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
P.S. Note that we have offered various portage devs hardware and/or an
account on Iluxa's ginormous Origin 2000 machine in the past with the
intention of getting this fixed, and nobody has taken us up on that...
so ? none of the
On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
* gettext
* tar
That makes _4_ system packages. Before I would consider making
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 02:35:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
* gettext
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 09:29, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
P.S. Note that we have offered various portage devs hardware and/or an
account on Iluxa's ginormous Origin 2000 machine in the past with the
intention of getting this fixed, and nobody has taken us up on that...
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:35:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
*
On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:56, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
The metadata for sandbox suggests that it is under the control of the
portage team, even if they lack a herd:
... because it is tightly integrated with portage ... there is the aspects of
portage which require some sandbox env
On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:48, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Then RESTRICT=test, or use a src_test which warns on test failures
rather than aborting, could be used. Or am I missing something?
some architectures pass fine
my [hidden] point was that globally enabling/disabling FEATURES=test isnt a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:56, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
The metadata for sandbox suggests that it is under the control of the
portage team, even if they lack a herd:
... because it is tightly integrated with portage ... there is the aspects of
portage which require
On Saturday 05 August 2006 16:07, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Of course I know this, and it sucks. If sandbox is so tightly
integrated with portage, then why *isn't* there a portage team member
who works on sandbox?
because portage requires deep knowledge in python/bash
sandbox requires deep
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 16:07 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:56, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
The metadata for sandbox suggests that it is under the control of the
portage team, even if they lack a herd:
... because it is tightly
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 02:11:58 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I'd like to suggest we make FEATURES=test (and therefore USE=test) the
| default behaviour, rather than the opt-in we currently have. Far too
| many packages fail their test phase.
Paludis does this. It's nice in theory.
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I'd like to suggest we make FEATURES=test (and therefore USE=test) the
default behaviour, rather than the opt-in we currently have. Far too
many packages fail their test phase.
Since we encourage users to set CFLAGS in ways that upstream may not
have predicted, if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I'd like to suggest we make FEATURES=test (and therefore USE=test) the
default behaviour, rather than the opt-in we currently have. Far too
many packages fail their test phase.
Since we encourage users to set CFLAGS in ways
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I'd like to suggest we make FEATURES=test (and therefore USE=test) the
default behaviour, rather than the opt-in we currently have. Far too
many packages fail their test phase.
Sure everyone likes to watch glibc failing? :P /joke
Well, can't be done until bugs such as
Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 02:11 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
At the very least, ebuild maintainers and ATs should be running with
tests switched on. If the tests are known to fail then the ebuild
can either RESTRICT=test, or just return successfully from src_test()
where the test report is useful
31 matches
Mail list logo
