Re: DEP-8 pseudo-restriction "hint-dpkg-testsuite-triggers"
(dropping #901804 again)
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: DEP-8 pseudo-restriction "hint-dpkg-testsuite-triggers""):
> On 18-06-18 18:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > How about "more likely" ? Or "are considered to pose a risk of
> > regressions" ?
> Fine. I like the second one better.
> > If there are better alternatives that are likely to be deployable soon
> > then I'm all ears...
> Considering your description above I give you the following alternative
> suggestion: make a gnupg1 specific test, where you install gnupg instead
> of gnupg2 and verify that it works also that way. For a while I was
> testing my package dbconfig-common with both MariaDB and MySQL servers
> (neither of which are my (indirect) dependencies as the server may run
> on a different host).
What, do that and add the gnupg direct dependency to all the other
tests ? But then I have to do more work if and when gnupg1 is
removed. Worse, that will show up as a regression...
I do think I want a thing to _just_ trigger tests, without changing
how they are run, or causing other kinds of lossage.
> > * patch/diffutils:
> I started writing in my previous mail a proposal about you helping your
> dependency to create a good autopkgtest to cover your use case. I
> deleted that. Seems like I should have left that in. :)
Yes, well, that woudl be lovely, but it's a lot more work (both
sociopolitical and technical). My current proposal is quite easy from
both points of view.
So I think I'll update my proposed text and file a bug against
autopkgtest asking for this new hint restriction to be documented.
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> 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.