Mail archive
alpine-devel

Re: [alpine-devel] Calling build() check() package() might be a bad order

From: Ivan Tham <pickfire_at_riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 13:08:29 +0800

Yes, I think build() -> package() -> check() would be a nice idea. I
suggest that check() can be optional and not be included as well if we
are building for abuild since there is not much reason to do so.

On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 04:34:49PM +0100, Jean-Louis Fuchs wrote:
>I wanted to point out that there might be a problem with the order in
>which abuild calls build(), check() and package().
>
>My project has to be built different for testing and releasing. Since
>abuild will call build() first, then check() and then package(), it is
>built the wrong way either in check() or in package(). I am in the
>fortunate position that my project can do out-of-source builds, but if
>it couldn't I would have to do the following:
>
>build()
> Build for release
>
>check()
> Clean, build for test, test, clean and build for release
>
>package()
> Package
>
>I know that any project that does coverage has to be rebuilt for
>testing, so my project shouldn't be the only case. Also tests often
>only work if assert is active, which it isn't in release mode.
>
>Here is the out-of-source version of the package of my project:
>https://github.com/ganwell/chirp/blob/build_cleanup/dist/alpine/chirp/APKBUILD
>
>If check() would run at the end:
>
>build()
> Build for release
>
>package()
> Package
>
>check()
> Clean, build for test and test
>
>May be there is a much better way that I am not aware of, in that case
>we should document this in the wiki.

-- 
Do what you like, like what you do.  -- Pickfire




---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Received on Sun Mar 05 2017 - 13:08:29 UTC