Hi Ian, On 18-09-18 14:23, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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) The two above should nowadays be in sync, so that is not the issue. If they are not in sync, I'll never file a bug report. > some-dependency <version> <version> > binary package (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable) > > other packages those from testing those from testing > > or something ? >>> 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. This isn't an issue that maintainers need to care about. britney should make sure that the right thing happens here, if binaries are taken from unstable, the test is taken from unstable too. > I am saying that I think this is not worthwhile (and possibly even > harmful, although I haven't thought about it that clearly). So, let's stop this discussion, it doesn't need solving in this way. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature