Re: Bug#908757: r-cran-processx: autopkgtest regression
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Bug#908757: r-cran-processx: autopkgtest regression"):
> 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).
I see you have tried to clarify this in recent emails. I think the
result is simply far too convoluted a sentence. It is really hard to
understand.
How about a table:
The recent upload of r-cran-processx seems to have introduced a
regression:
passing failing
r-cran-processx <version> <version>
autopkgtest (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable)
r-cran-processx <version> <version>
binary packages (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable)
some-dependency <version> <version>
binary package (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable)
other packages those from testing those from testing
or something ?
> > 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.
It would be possible to to avoid this non-big issue by, whenever a
test is changed in a way that makes it fail with old binaries, adding
a versioned test dependency on the new binaries to the affected test.
I am saying that I think this is not worthwhile (and possibly even
harmful, although I haven't thought about it that clearly).
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: