bug#43746: What to do about packages that don't support --without-tests / #:tests? #f setting

["pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 468 bytes --]

The new package transformation option --without-tests works by setting
#:tests? #f in the specified packages.  But some packages replace
their 'check phase and no longer honor #tests?.  glib for example.

Attached is an attempt to document this current behavior.  Shall I
push it?  Alternatively, it should be documented to write a check
phase that honors #:tests?.  Or the package transformation should be
changed to remove any check phase it finds.

Regards,
Florian

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-doc-Explain-why-without-tests-may-fail-with-modified.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1149 bytes --]

From b55e6ee01fe674b282e7ec75d0e4c8a839262261 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Florian Pelz <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:35:52 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Explain why '--without-tests' may fail with modified
 'check' phase.

* doc/guix.texi (Package Transformation Options): Explain.
---
 doc/guix.texi | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index e8458ad8d8..6a2bd629cb 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -9350,6 +9350,12 @@ The command above installs @code{python-notebook} on top of
 rebuilds everything that depends on @code{python}, including
 @code{python-notebook} itself.
 
+Internally, @code{--without-tests} relies on changing the
+@code{#:tests?} option of a package's @code{check} phase (@pxref{Build
+Systems}).  Note that some packages use a customized @code{check} phase
+that does not respect a @code{#:tests? #f} setting.  Therefore there are
+some packages for which @code{--without-tests} cannot disable tests.
+
 @end table
 
 @node Additional Build Options
-- 
2.28.0