On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 07:11:14PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:22:52PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > [...] > > However I think the current config is not useful for packages that users will directly > > use as programs, and which do not have an arch:all lib package. > > For example: aerc, micro, riseup-vpn, go-sendxmpp et. al. and I would much rather like to use > > the default salsa-ci config pipeline for these and I have changed it for a couple of them already. > > > > What do you think? And is there an objection in general? > > Please only change for packages that you want, like what you have done. > I'm object to change it for general. Ofourse, I was talking about specific ones. > I consider the salsaci[1] waste of resources. But IMHO, build, i386-build, lintian and autopkgtest are pretty helpful in general none of which the existing pipeline gives. > For packages that only using the exposed feature of dh-golang, they are not expected to fix > any issues found by salsaci[1], like reprotest Yes > arch:any, arch:all... not for this though, it works okay with current setting. arch:all or arch:any failing would mean that there is some issue with d/rules or install files. If either fails, then it'd likely fail on buildds too, and package won't migrate. > The only way to get issues fixed is to work with dh-golang maintenance, or go compiler for > issues like reproducible, hardening, etc. True. > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline -- Regards, Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature