Re: mercurial new test packages

[Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org>]

Antoine,

> >> I am not sure why the test suite fails nor why the output varies from
> >> one build to the next. Once a package is built, however, it passes the
> >> test suite reliably.
[…]
> Sure. I guess I see this from the perspective of "does the actual fix
> work or not" as well. ;)

Sorry to keep on about this but I still think we are talking past each
other. You seem to be conflating and jumping between three separate
concerns:

 * A build that does not non-determistically fail in its testsuite (and
   thus FTBFS randomly.).
   
 * Reliably detecting regressions ("introduce new…").
 
 * A bit-for-bit reproducible build - eg. your "test packages
   unreproducible" note in data/dla-needed.txt when we both agreed that
   is not a goal of LTS updates.
   
Can you please clarify exactly which are referring to in data/dla-
needed.txt?

These are all somewhat related to some degree but being casual about
the terms really does not help anyone else who wants to pick up this
package and ultimately fix it for our users.
   
> > Are you using btrfs?
> 
> Nope.

(As in; that's often an easy to introduce some non-determinism
filesystem ordering, rather than a diagnosis that needs knocking down..)


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-