[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

mass autopkgtest Perl run [2014-09-20]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:10:06AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:

> I re-run all the previously failed (~ 900) packages again, this time
> with p-p-a 0.17, and got 96 new passes from that:

Awesome, thanks.

> > libextutils-autoinstall-perl got killed due to a timeout, but builds
> > fine for me. Is that reproducible for you?
> Yes, it is. I started it without timeout, but got bored after ~ 10
> mins of doing and seeing nothing. Does that work for you?

Ah, this is #752930. We'll need a workaround for that.
> > (In the latter case, waiting for the binNMUs in #760123 would be prudent
> > as we're currently in a small Perl transition.)
> I didn't do that, but I guess you can do the test run for the four
> packages yourself easily, and update d-ci-config?

Sorry for being unclear. I was trying to say that there were temporary
installability problems with perl packages due to those four needing
binNMUs for the Perl 5.20.1 mini-transition. The binNMUs were built
yesterday so that problem is gone now. (If you had tested the passing
packages too, you'd have seen quite a few temporary new failures.)

Looking through the logs, 58 test runs failed because of those.
I re-tested them now, and (disappointingly only) four of them passed.
I've committed those four to the d-ci-config repo.

> > PS: I've just documented all this a bit at
> >  http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/autopkgtest.html
> Oh, nice! The adt-run commands aren't exactly the most recommended
> ones, but they work. E. g. it should be "-B --unbuilt-tree=." (or
> shorter, "-B .//"), as these trees aren't really built usually.  These
> tests don't have "build-needed", so it doesn't make a difference for
> Perl, it's just a bad habit to get into for running other package
> tests.

Thanks, fixed them a bit after reading
which has a few more tricks than the manpage.

Please let me know if there's more to correct.
Niko Tyni   ntyni at debian.org

Reply to: