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

Re: packages expected to fail on some archs


Tobias Frost, le lun. 12 sept. 2022 16:08:08 +0200, a ecrit:
> The problem is that if you want to exclude an arch explicitly, you have to
> list all archs you want to build it on. IOW,  I'm missing an easy way to say
> "not on THIS architecture", somthing like "[!armel]"

Yes, but see below.

> There are a few packages I take care of which make trouble on some archs or
> simply do not make much sense to run on those low-end archs.

If they make trouble, I would say just let the package FTBFS there.

> I was spending siginifant time in the past weeks on such a package, to fix
> autopkgtests issues specific to that arch -- unsuccessfully, I disabled the
> tests in the end --,

Is it possible to get the same test be performed during package build
time? That way, it will be just not built, not shipped, and the state
will be clear on the buildd status page, and you can move on to more
useful work. For instance in my pocketsphinx package case:


the mips tests fail, I just let it fail. If anybody feels interested
enough to take the time to fix the bug, then great. In the meanwhile it
will just not be available since it is broken. The only work I have done
for that problem is reporting the issue upstream:


What was proposed in the thread was to make the buildd page show the
failure in orange, so that people know that it's a known failure, and
not a new bug.


Reply to: