From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: gdk-pixbuf: Disable pixbuf-scale test.
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 12:15:37 +0100
Message-ID: <20160207111537.GB5011@debian>
References: <56b2fd41.57116b0a.987be.ffffd924@mx.google.com>
	<20160206151749.GA9236@debian> <20160206205624.GB6348@jasmine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56844)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aSNJh-0007eC-Qj
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 06:15:46 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aSNJe-0007ew-Ju
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 06:15:45 -0500
Received: from mailrelay1.public.one.com ([91.198.169.124]:54883)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aSNJe-0007eh-3l
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 06:15:42 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160206205624.GB6348@jasmine>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 03:56:24PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> 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.

I basically agree with your comment, which is also in line with our policy
of following upstream as closely as possible when building packages.
On the other hand, a simple unit test that requires 2GB of memory seems a bit
excessive to me and could be considered a bug in the upstream package.
How about reporting a bug upstream, Jookia? And maybe disable the test
in the package with a comment linking to the bug report?

Andreas