Hello David, On Mon 24 Dec 2018 at 08:20am +0900, David Bremner wrote: > Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes: > >> In addition to running upstream test suites, dh_elpa_test could test >> whether the package's elisp can be bytecompiled against the version of >> Emacs in sid -- Emacs is already a hard dependency of dh-elpa. >> >> This would catch certain classes of bugs earlier. > > 1) What do you think about the idea of adding something like a > "DESDTDIR" to the generated emacsen-common scripts, then running the > generated emacsen-install file with DESTDIR=/tmp/something. That > would be slightly risky in the sense that every time we touch > maintainer scripts there is the potential for user suffering. This is more through testing than just testing bytecompilation, but seems like a straightforward way to achieve the former. So, sure, let's implement it like that. I think we'd want to keep such a thing out of unstable until after the release of buster. That answers your concern about risk, I think. > 2) Should this be done by dh_elpa_test, or by dh_elpa? I can imagine > that we might disable upstream test suites but still want to run the > byte compilation. The important thing is that it could be disabled with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck; I guess that dh_elpa could just as well respond to that variable as dh_elpa_test, so it would be fine to put it in dh_elpa for the reason you give. Making this work is going to require adding basically everything in ${elpa:Depends} to Build-Depends, because byte compilation will require loading all the other ELPA libs the package uses. We want it to be possible to annotate those additional build-deps with <!nocheck>. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature