On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:59:04AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > The goals of "nocheck" are different, and more useful, are bypassing > > the test suite allows faster builds in all cases. > > The goals of Build-Depends-Test are the same of "nocheck": faster > overall build time if you don't care about the test suite. In a sense, > "nocheck" can be complete only with Build-Depends-Test. > > Then you can ask in which scenario you might want to skip test suite > to build faster, ... and I don't think buildds match that scenario.
nocheck is not only to reduce build-time but also to allow easier cross-compilation where a cross-compiled test-suite can't run at all on the build machine. Thus I don't think that the argument presented holds. The creation of nocheck doesn't imply that we have to go further and create Build-Depends-Test for completing any initial goal. For me it's useless complexity at this point. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
