Re: DEP-8 pseudo-restriction "hint-dpkg-testsuite-triggers"
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: DEP-8 pseudo-restriction "hint-dpkg-testsuite-triggers""):
> On 19-06-18 16:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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.
Thanks.
I did want to clarify one thing:
> >> 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.
I think we must be talking at cross purposes. I'm going to try to
explain again, to give you another chance to convince me I'm going
about this the wrong way. So:
gnupg2 is the current default in Debian. dgit is supposed to work
with both gnupg1 and gnupg2. It calls gnupg both directly and via
debsign. In practice there is no difficulty with gnupg1. I worry,
though, about possible regressions in interaction with gnupg2 and
gpgv.
Almost every test makes and verifies signatures, using a stunt set of
keys. When testing switched to gnupg2, I discovered (sadly too late
to make a fuss about it, by the time I had figured out what was going
on) the gnupg2 startup bugs. I have been adding increasingly horrific
workarounds to the test suite.
I want an early warning if things get worse. I think the Debian
gnupg2 maintainers would appreciate that too. (Upstream's attitude is
... more mixed.) So I need my tests rerun in buster, with gnupg2,
when gnupg2 is updated.
Having a test run with gnupg1 might be a bonus but is not really
important, since gnupg1 works and, realistically, probably isn't going
to break.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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.
Reply to: