Hi Cordell, Hi Christian, Christian Kastner, on 2023-07-12: > On 2023-07-12 22:53, Cordell Bloor wrote: > > Hi Étienne and Christian, > > > > I'm a bit unclear on our policy with these sorts of issues. Should this > > be blocking the entry of rocthrust-tests into experimental? > > No, experimental is fine, or even unstable. > > Failing _autopkgtests_ are blockers for the (automatic) migration from > unstable to testing. > > Maintainers can elect to skip failing tests, to allow migration to > stable, because one failing test can block the entire source package > from migrating, and that's annoying if the test only fails in a very > rare way, or on some niche architecture, e.g. [3]. > > > The tests are failing (and in a bad way), but they're just the > > messenger. They exercised the system and revealed a preexisting > > problem. To me, that seems valuable to end-users. It's a lot faster > > to discover that some rocthrust function will cause problems on your > > GPU by installing and running the test suite vs. being half-way > > through writing your own program using librocthrust-dev and > > discovering it via your own code. > > I emphasized _autopkgtests_ above because you are of course right: these > particular tests (being hardware-dependent) have substantial value to > end users, so it would make sense to allow them to migrate. > > So to get around the autopkgtest migration condition, what I would do > eventually in debian/tests/upstream-binaries is to skip tests if a GPU > is detected for which we can expect failure. I uploaded rocthrust as-is to experimental, to put the package into more hands, so furhter testing hopefully. (I'm having intermittent access to the keyboard at the moment, so need to carefully choose what I do.) Have a nice day, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org> : :' : gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature