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

Re: DEP-8 extension proposal: Add source package header

Martin Pitt writes ("Re: DEP-8 extension proposal: Add source package header"):
> Subscribed. Thanks for bouncing it, as I cannot mail Ian directly
> (his MTA rejects my mail server).

If you send a copy of the bounce to postmaster@chiark I will add an
exception entry to my spamfilter.

> Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-06-13 23:42 +0200]:
> > I'm also curious about the implementation: do you actually use
> > autopkgtest as low level test runner for Jenkins integration or...?
> We do. We had to fix a number of bugs there, they just recently were
> uploaded to Debian as well (thanks Ian).

Thanks for the fixes!

> > As long as it stays as a XS-* header (which, for the history, it's also
> > how Vcs-* fields came into existence), no tool change is needed.
> Not needed, but it would be nice if dpkg-source could just add it
> automatically, so that developers don't need to care about it.

That would be the way to do it, I think.

> I saw that coming: There would be little dispute about adding a
> header, but lots of difficulty to find a good name. :-) Perhaps we
> should think about an actual name for DEP-8 first (similar to what we
> had with DEP-5 -> "copyright 1.0 format"), and then use an
> abbreviation of that for the XS-Testsuite: value?

Is there some reason why we can't use "autopkgtest" ?  It's a pretty
boring name really and I don't mind it being reused for both spec and
implementation.  That's a thing we do quite often anyway.  Eg "dpkg" :-)

And of course the spec is currently actually in the autopkgtest
package and should probably stay there for now, until things congeal
some more.


Reply to: