Re: Are there regular bulk builds with PKGSRC_RUN_TEST=yes?

[Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost>]

* On 2016-01-16 at 10:57 GMT, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 16.01.2016 09:22, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> > * On 2016-01-16 at 03:18 GMT, Roland Illig wrote:
> > 
> >> I am running NetBSD 7.0/amd64 inside a VirtualBox, and I ran into
> >> an issue that Go programs cannot be profiled. When I opened a bug
> >> against Go, I've been told that it sounded very unlikely.
> >> 
> >> Therefore, I rebuilt all my local pkgsrc installation using 
> >> PKGSRC_RUN_TEST=yes. The result of that was that many packages
> >> fail now during their self-tests, even ones like lang/perl5,
> >> devel/libtool-base, devel/libidn and several others that are
> >> needed for basic operation.
> >> 
> >> Now I wonder when these self-tests have been run the last time
> >> successfully.
> >> 
> >> Does anyone run bulk builds regularly having PKGSRC_RUN_TEST=yes
> >> in their mk.conf, and if so, what are the results?
> > 
> > Yes, I run them weekly on SmartOS.  As expected the results are
> > mostly useless, e.g.:
> > 
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bulk/2016/01/10/msg012362.html
> > 
> > Help to fix this would be appreciated.
> > 
> 
> While there, is it fine to assume that test target dependencies are in
> the group of build dependencies?
> 
> For example devel/gmake requires Perl to run tests, is it fine to add
> it as USE_TOOLS += perl:build?

Until we have TEST_DEPENDS or :test support in USE_TOOLS, yes, though
it would be helpful to add it on a separate line with a comment to say
it is only required for tests, so we can go around cleaning up later.

Just be careful that you do not introduce any circular dependencies,
especially in core packages like gmake.

Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -  www.joyent.com