Hi Simon, On 27-02-2020 18:16, Simon McVittie wrote: > While monitoring test results for glib2.0_unstable via the > package tracking system, I noticed that dbusada is reported as having > an autopkgtest regression with the new GLib. However, the logs seem weird: > >> autopkgtest [22:14:19]: host ci-worker01; command line: /usr/bin/autopkgtest --no-built-binaries '--setup-commands=echo '"'"'dbusada testing/amd64'"'"' > /var/tmp/debci.pkg' --user debci --apt-upgrade --add-apt-release=unstable --pin-packages=unstable=src:glib2.0 --output-dir /tmp/tmp.i2Nvdf5qy1/autopkgtest-incoming/testing/amd64/d/dbusada/4386177 dbusada -- lxc --sudo --name ci-057-5af08ed6 autopkgtest-testing-amd64 >> ... >> autopkgtest [22:14:41]: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ apt-source dbusada >> Get:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main dbusada 0.5.0-3 (dsc) [2,172 B] You skipped this part: Starting 2 pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 1 Investigating (0) autopkgtest-satdep:amd64 < 0 @iU mK Nb Ib > Broken autopkgtest-satdep:amd64 Depends on libdbusada0.5.0:amd64 < none @un H > Removing autopkgtest-satdep:amd64 because I can't find libdbusada0.5.0:amd64 And then this part: autopkgtest: WARNING: Test dependencies are unsatisfiable with using apt pinning. Retrying with using all packages from unstable > To check whether migrating glib2.0 from unstable to testing would cause > a regression, I would have expected that we'd want to be running the > tests from dbusada/testing (which is version 0.4.x), with all packages > taken from testing, except glib2.0 (and its dependencies if they are not > satisfiable in testing) from unstable. That is what was tried, but it wasn't installable. So autopkgtest tried something else, in the hope it would succeed. > However, what we're actually getting is an attempt to run the tests from > dbusada/unstable (version 0.5.x). dbusada in unstable is currently broken > (its build-dependencies are unsatisfied on all architectures - I've > reported a bug), hence the regression. > > Is this a bug in the migration infrastructure, or a bug in debci, or are > my expectations wrong? None of the three. It's a fall-back mechanism that in this case doesn't help. I'm not happy with the fall-back, but not having it is worse. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature