Hi Ian,
On 17-09-18 15:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Gevers writes ("Bug#908757: r-cran-processx: autopkgtest regression"):
>> With a recent upload of r-cran-processx the autopkgtest of
>> r-cran-processx fails in testing when that autopkgtest is run with the
>> binary packages of r-cran-processx from unstable. It passes when run
>> with only packages from testing.
>
> Was there a slip in that description ?
No, but I can see it confuses a bit. But improvements to the text (which
I use in a template) are welcome. Very much so. What I meant to say is,
take src:r-cran-processx and all it's binaries from unstable, add it to
testing and run the testsuite (in this case, from unstable).
> If not:
>
> I think that it is not unusual for the autopkgtest of X (1.0) to
> fail when run against the binaries for X (1.1).
That is not what I meant here. I agree with you that that would not be a
big issue. Nowadays, with my britney improvements, this should be only
the case with uncatched versioned dependencies or breaks/conflicts.
> Doing that test is not really useful for testing migration; the
> testing migration should run the tests from the new X (1.1).
Ack, I think that happened also.
> It is probably not worthwhile anyone declaring an explicit version in
> the test dependency.
I don't see what you mean here even.
Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature