From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: gdk-pixbuf: Disable pixbuf-scale test. Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 15:56:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20160206205624.GB6348@jasmine> References: <56b2fd41.57116b0a.987be.ffffd924@mx.google.com> <20160206151749.GA9236@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48077) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9u8-0004Ne-SU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:56:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9u5-0002vM-Mr for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:56:28 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:54827) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aS9u5-0002vI-JB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:56:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160206151749.GA9236@debian> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:25:41PM +0000, Jookia wrote: > > On systems with little ram (2G in my case) the pixbuf-scale test will either > > freeze the system of cause excessive swapping without the test every completing. > > The patch looks good to me, but it would be nice to have another opinion. I would like another option besides disabling the test unconditionally. We already have several packages that can simply not be built on hardware like Jookia's, and although it's an unfortunate situation, I don't think we should start disabling tests for the substitutes we build for this reason. Running all the tests possible allows us to provide valuable feedback to upstream. How about a comment in the package definition describing the RAM requirement and how to disable the test, so that users on less powerful hardware can make the change themselves? > > In any case, it should probably be applied once we have a bit more build > power, since it causes substantial package rebuilds. > > Andreas > >