Hi all, On 17-09-2020 10:03, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:18 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >> I agreed about those bugs being filed but I strongly disagree about the >> "serious" severity that you used for those bugs. You should have mentioned >> your intent to use a RC-level severity and I would have reacted. > > If I were part of the release team, I would consider these issues as > RC because these packages are basically circumventing the testing > migration delay for untested packages by adding trivial tests that > don't fully test the functionality of the package. This. I have written it done in response to bug [#969819]: Notwithstanding the wording, the Release Team is happy with the bugs that Sudip is filing. Because of the way that autopkgtests are used in the Debian infrastructure to influence migration from unstable to testing [1], it is very important that autopkgtests are recognized for what they are. If an autopkgtest isn't really testing the installed binaries (and yes, the boundary is unfortunately not well defined) it's crucial that the test is marked as superficial, conform our rc_policy [2]. The Release Team has decided that the examples that Sudip tagged, i.e. --version, --help, checking for some installed file and the Python import check, are superficial. Paul [#969819] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=969819#24 [1] reduced age for packages with successful non-trivial autopkgtests and (since bullseye) packages with non-trivial autopkgtests are allowed to migrate in a later stage of the freeze than other packages: https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html [2] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/rc_policy.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature