From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: gdk-pixbuf: Disable pixbuf-scale test. Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:17:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20160207211739.GB21689@jasmine> References: <56b2fd41.57116b0a.987be.ffffd924@mx.google.com> <20160206151749.GA9236@debian> <20160206205624.GB6348@jasmine> <20160207111537.GB5011@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59625) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSWiF-0001Tf-JH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 16:17:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSWiC-0001Gt-Cd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 16:17:43 -0500 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:50067) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSWiC-0001Gp-8R for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 16:17:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160207111537.GB5011@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 Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > 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? True, depending on the nature of the software it could be considered a bug. There are some programs, like compression algorithm implementations, where I think such tests can be appropriate, however. > > Andreas >