Re: Proposed build profile: noinsttests
On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 at 23:16:39 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I think [combining tests with examples] should be allowed, and
> > should not prevent use of the
> > noinsttests profile. We shouldn't fill up the Packages file and the NEW
> > queue with separate installed-tests, manual tests and examples binary
> > packages for no good reason, and if you want to install one of those
> > categories, it seems to me that being forced to install the others is
> > not onerous.
>
> This appears to contradict your classification of "cannot change content
> of binary packages".
Sorry, in case I was unclear, some examples:
I think building dbus with the noinsttests profile should disable the
entire dbus-tests binary package, meaning it drops the automated tests,
the manual tests, the extra-verbose debug build, and dbus-test-tool.
Similarly, I think building gtk+3.0 with noinsttests should disable the
entire gtk-3-examples package, including both installed-tests and examples.
That makes the profile "safe" in the sense that it does not change the
content of binary packages, only the list of binary packages produced.
The cost of doing this is that it broadens the scope of noinsttests beyond
what you might immediately think of as its core function (GNOME-style
automated installed-tests) - but I think that's OK, because installable
examples and manual tests are fairly similar in spirit to installable
automated tests.
smcv
Reply to: