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

Re: DEP-8 pseudo-restriction "hint-dpkg-testsuite-triggers"

Hi Ian,

On 19-06-18 16:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 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 ?

No, have just one specific test for gnupg1, and only add it there.

> But then I have to do more work if and when gnupg1 is
> removed.

Do what I did for MySQL once I noticed it isn't in buster: drop that
specific test.

>  Worse, that will show up as a regression...

A regression in what sense and for what package? The package that
dropped gnupg1? Maybe that is good because than you are notified that
you need to update your test in order for gnupg1 to be dropped. And true
that once the gnupg1 is removed from testing your regression test fails,
but then the baseline is failing. This also means it isn't a regression
in the britney sense for any package. Of course you would want your test
to pass, but at the moment gnupg is removed, it isn't harming anything
in the current setup. The release team was very clear, they want to
compare to the current state in testing.

> I do think I want a thing to _just_ trigger tests, without changing
> how they are run, or causing other kinds of lossage.

Fair. But now if gnupg1 is removed, you'll not notice that you should
remove your trigger.

>>>  * 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.

I think you should go ahead.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: