Dne 09. 06. 20 v 13:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 09. 06. 20 12:21, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> That won't be different for what was the original question here, i.e.
> conditionally disable tests. bconds are what we have for better or
> worse.
>
> And really, this seems about bootstrapping not disabling tests, which
> are not completely different, but nobody can objects bootstrapping,
> while disabling tests might be good just to improve build speed and
> nothing else. That should never happen in production environment IMO.
FTR the discussion here is about packages that already have a
bcond/macro to disable tests -- Tomáš proposed a common way of doing
it. This discussion is not about adding new conditionals to packages
that don't have them.
Whether or not disabling tests has legitimate use cases is out of
scope here. It happens. We just want it to be more predictable when
dealing with packaging in bulk.
As a metaphor (arguably not a very good one), imagine combustion motor
vehicles. They pollute the environment. We are proposing to introduce
colored emission stickers.
While we have already some other kind of stickers which could be reused.
The proposal was to optionally disable test. When somebody asked why,
the answer was bootstrapping. But we know how to handle bootstrapping.
So shouldn't somebody spend time changing the test conditionals to
bootstrapping conditionals, because that seems to be the use case?
Or if you have different use case, then you probably want to explain it.
Vít
You are discussing whether we should have such vehicles at all.
While
such discussion is certainly legitimate, it is out of scope. Sure, if
we discard all gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and switch to
electric or bicycles or perpetuum mobile, we don't have to put the
energy into the emission stickers project. But how likely is that?