Re: packages expected to fail on some archs
Tobias Frost, le lun. 12 sept. 2022 18:36:09 +0200, a ecrit:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 05:11:46PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, it compiles there… Of course I could fail it artifically, but that
> isn't something I would say it would be appropiate.
That may still be more informative than hardcoding an Architecture list?
I happen to be doing that in sphinxbase actually:
https://salsa.debian.org/a11y-team/sphinxbase/-/blob/master/debian/rules#L30
> > > 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:
>
> Would do that if it would be possible; The tests won't run properly without the
> data installed properly.
Ok, so it's a corner case we were discussing on debian-ports indeed.
Samuel
Reply to: