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

Re: Migration test for glib2.0 unexpectedly using dbusada/unstable source code

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

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: