[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ghostscript testing


On 25/03/2019 16:13, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> On 25/03/2019 16:11, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I prepared an update for ghostscript.
>> https://people.debian.org/~beuc/lts/ghostscript/
>> Even if we recently rebased to the latest upstream in jessie, the
>> upstream patches did not apply cleanly and I did my best to replicate
>> the changes.
>> Note: we ship a 9.26*a* version which upstream does not provide publicly
>> AFAICS (plus it was dfsg-modified), but the conflicts are due to
>> upstream's master branch.
>> Upstream seems to keep their test suite private. The documentation
>> reference a "smoke.ps" file that was removed years ago, and even then it
>> depended on PS files that I cannot locate.
>> https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.26/Release.htm#Testing
>> Is there a known test suite for ghostscript?
>> (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26
> [hit a shortcut by accident]
> (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26b and backport it?)

Emilio kindly provided some info in private.

Debian Security intends to ship 9.27 when it comes out, so I'll probably
follow suite, given my limited understanding of PostScript and the lack
of test suite.
Emilio got the info privately as the previous uploader.
In the spirit of our continued transparency I would recommend to make
recaps such as this one on the list, because browsing archives is
usually informative and time-saving :)

The previous ghostscript upload also benefited from private real-life
testing on a cluster that was since then upgraded to squeeze, so
ghostscript testing remains an open issue.
Another argument in favor of going with 9.27.

Markus, I read in the archives that you backported fixes in earlier
security uploads - any other tip? :)


Reply to: