[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/zzuf:
From:       Samuli Suominen <ssuominen () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2010-02-26 22:52:56
Message-ID: 4B8850C8.8020607 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 02/27/2010 12:48 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 02/26/10 22:02, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/26/2010 10:50 PM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote:
> 
>>> src_test() {
>>> 	if hasq sandbox ${FEATURES}; then
>>> 		ewarn "zzuf tests don't work correctly when sandbox is enabled,"
>>> 		ewarn "skipping tests. If you want to run the testsuite, please"
>>> 		ewarn "disable sandbox for this build."
>>> 		return
>>> 	fi
>>
>> Testing FEATURES from ebuild? You shouldn't do that.
> 
> I disagree. That's a good way not to fail there, unless someone has a
> better idea how to make that work.
> 
> And I'd appreciate it if PMS would stop refusing to document FEATURES.
> (Double negative? I mean: PMS should document reality)
> 
> I won't mind if someone "fixes" that in a way that still has the same
> functionality, but I honestly don't see it as a bug, so I'll leave it as
> it is.
> 

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279465
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174335

Even this is better,

RESTRICT="test" # Doesn't work with sandbox enabled, see bug 279465

My point is simple: If you don't like the situation / policy, try to
change it, don't go solo with singular ebuild.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]