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

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes:

> * 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.

No. Don't do it without conditionalizing on PKGSRC_RUN_TEST.
Sometimes dependencies are quite heavy.


-- 
HE CE3OH...