Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial
On 9/4/20 8:52 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-tests.html
>
> Examples of tests which are not significant includes (its not a complete list):
>
> 1) Executing the binary to check version
> Test-Command: foo -v
> Test-Command: foo -V
> Test-Command: foo --version
>
> 2) Executing the binary to check help (foo -h)
> Test-Command: foo -h
> Test-Command: foo --help
>
> 3) checking for files installed with 'ls'.
> Test-Command: ls -l /usr/lib/*/foo.so
>
> 4) A Python or Perl library runs import foo or require Foo; but does
> not attempt to use the library beyond that.
> Test-Command: python3 -c "import foo"
>
> I am still trying to figure out a generalized method to find them but
> an initial script has found 83 packages. Attached is the dd-list.
> I intend to open the bug reports on them next week.
>
> --
> Regards
> Sudip
While I found your work useful, it is my opinion that these bugs didn't
deserve an RC severity. Please read the definition of the severities,
what we're talking about in this thread doesn't match serious:
"is a severe violation of Debian policy"
Also, such a "problem" (if it really is one, and I'm in the opinion that
it isn't, but YMMV) doesn't invalidate the package.
In some cases, I end up maintaining autopkgtest that were contributed.
This is counter-productive, and makes me think I probably should just
remove them if this becomes so annoying to maintain... :(
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: