Re: Fwd: Bug#956931: autopkgtest: Build profiles support for autopkgtest
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:04:02PM +0200, Jiri Palecek wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Bug#956931: autopkgtest: Build profiles support for autopkgtest
> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 20:42:01 +0000
> Resent-From: Jiri Palecek <jpalecek@web.de>
> Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
> Resent-CC: jpalecek@web.de, Debian CI team <team+ci@tracker.debian.org>
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 22:38:07 +0200
> From: Jiri Palecek <jpalecek@web.de>
> Reply-To: Jiri Palecek <jpalecek@web.de>, 956931@bugs.debian.org
> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
>
>
>
> Package: autopkgtest
> Version: 5.12.2~6.gbp89ad39
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> with the latest and greatest changes in dpkg, I think it would be nice
> if autopkgtest followed suit. Particularly, it would be advantageous to
> support running and building tests in autopkgtest under build profiles
> (esp. nodoc!). This would allow for smaller test footprint, less
> packages to pull (ie. you don't need texlive on the testbed), and faster
> building of the packages.
>
> I prepared a patch implementing such a change here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/jpalecek-guest/autopkgtest/-/commit/6275da59305d6e836cb3558f9f442479eb24fc95
>
> The patch is functional, albeit incomplete due to missing documentation.
>
> The real issue is the control file format. In my patch, I use an extra
> stanza to specify build profiles, like this:
>
> Build-Profiles: nodoc
>
> Tests: run-some-tests
> <<<
>
> I chose this format, because adding the specification to some of the
> tests would be IMHO misleading: the build profile applies to all of the
> tests indiscriminately, not to any particular one. Also, I chose to
> apply them to all @builddep@ dependencies as well.
>
> However, there is a problem about this: it makes the control file format
> non-backwards-compatible. Particularly, dpkg needs to be patched or it
> will croak on packages with such d/t/control. Maybe, some artificial
> Tests: line like
>
> Tests: *
>
> could be added? That would make the change backwards compatible. Dpkg
> still needs to be patched, but the change would be rather minimal.
>
> What do you think about this proposal? Please comment here or on
> salsa. I'm also CC-ing the dpkg developers, since it concerns them.
I understand the motivation for testing in-archive, but this creates
a problem for local testing of unbuilt packages. We want to test as
close to the archive as possible, meaning that the packages we test
should be built with the same build profile as in the archive.
I'm not sure how this is currently handled, but I'd really not
want to go through the trouble of building twice, once without
profiles to get the .debs, and then with build profiles for tests
with build-needed.
And of course, I don't want to just build with those build profiles,
because then it's different from the archive, and I don't get the
guarantees I want (namely, I want to be reasonably certain that
if I run autopkgtest on my .dsc, that it will built and test
successfully in the archive as well; including docs, obviously).
So, in summary, I think it's not a good idea.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
Reply to: