Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)

[Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> +1 for option 2, fwiw.

I'm in favour of option 2.

Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
> As far as RPM is concerned, splitting the two is important, as %build
> and %check are explicitly separate steps.  I have no idea what the deb
> policy/organisation is here.

The reason why distro build systems like to distinguish "build" from
"check" (run tests) is that often the tests are time-consuming (or
have intrusive dependencies or other practical problems).

IMO if the ABI check is very fast there is no reason not to run it by
default.  (We have configure to deal with the dependency issue.)

Ian.