bug#43746: closed (What to do about packages that don't support --without-tests / #:tests? #f setting)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 3 Oct 2020 13:03:47 +0200
with message-id <20201003110347.w6ojpcjlui7okfyw@pelzflorian.localdomain>
and subject line Re: bug#43746: What to do about packages that don't support 
--without-tests / #:tests? #f setting
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #43746,
regarding What to do about packages that don't support --without-tests / 
#:tests? #f setting
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
43746: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=43746
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: What to do about packages that don't support --without-tests / #:tests? #f setting Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 16:31:36 +0200

The new package transformation option --without-tests works by setting
#:tests? #f in the specified packages.  But some packages replace
their 'check phase and no longer honor #tests?.  glib for example.

Attached is an attempt to document this current behavior.  Shall I
push it?  Alternatively, it should be documented to write a check
phase that honors #:tests?.  Or the package transformation should be
changed to remove any check phase it finds.

Regards,
Florian

0001-doc-Explain-why-without-tests-may-fail-with-modified.patch
Description: Text document

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#43746: What to do about packages that don't support --without-tests / #:tests? #f setting
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 3 Oct 2020 13:03:47 +0200
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:04:37PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > > I verified the attached patch fixes glib on the ‘master’ branch.
> > If you tested it on ‘master’, you can push it on ‘core-updates’.
>
> Pushed as 0585a0d0d1fe6e334d36e2d851b42b47d6769546.  Thank you!
>
> Closing, since the issue is documented now and fixing *all* other
> check phases is generally not worth it.
>
> Regards,
> Florian
>
>
> --- End Message ---