On 19/11/16 19:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> Could we maybe include some place (metadata.xml?) to state what is
> the best way to test a package? I'm thinking it could include things
> like:
>
> - whether the test of the package are reliable,
>
> - whether runtime testing is required and what kind of
On 11/17/2016 01:07 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:05:41PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> Isn't it implied that any stabilisation is approved by the maintainer?
>>> Has it ever been acceptable to go around stabilising random packages?
>>>
>>
>> Explicit > Implicit
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:04:01 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Could we maybe include some place (metadata.xml?) to state what is
> the best way to test a package? I'm thinking it could include things
> like:
>
> - whether the test of the package are reliable,
Shouldn't you set RESTRICT="test" if the
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:16:27 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Runtime testing
>
> Consider the level of runtime testing that is required for the target
> package. Remember, the focus of stabilisation is to integrate a testing
> ebuild into the stable tree and not to identify routine bug
