Hello Andreas, Thanks for the run-through of this package. When I started porting this package, I ran all the binaries to have a baseline of what to expect as "normal functionality". At that time, it was "No module named 'lefse'", which I assumed this to be "normal" as maybe lefse needed integration and not direct execution. I assumed that it being uploaded to unstable that it passed quality assurance, however some things always slip through which is understandable. Actually, lucky that I picked this package because I would rather have this rectified now than any later. > Once the script was running I realised that some Build-Depends were > missing. I now added debian/createmanpages to create manpages for each > script (+some manual editing). That way at least each script was > running once. With this package already being in unstable, I refrained from using a clean environment just to significantly speed up the build process so not realising missing build-depends slipped through. That reminds me, a commit persists on my side for the phyx package which has createmanpages but no generated man pages included. > Would you volunteer to write some autopkgtest - even if it would be > very simple to just call the script? I'd gladly volunteer. End users are not always the reliable source of information. Most people want something that "works", so you'll find people installing the software, seeing that it doesn't work and looking elsewhere. Unless you have a higher margin of a sustained userbase, the ordinary population tends to not bother with bug reports and following up on a software. Could be those people ended up compiling from source instead. Kind regards, Shayan Doust On 11/09/2019 09:55, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Shayan, > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 09:19:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: >>> $ run_lefse >>> Traceback (most recent call last): >>> File "/usr/bin/run_lefse", line 7, in <module> >>> from lefse import * >>> ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'lefse' >>> >>> Is this normal expected behaviour >> >> No. That's not normal. > > Arrghhh! It seems to be "normal" - at least its no regression. :-( > > Here is what I did: > > sudo apt-get --download-only install lefse > debdiff /var/cache/apt/archives/lefse_1.0.8-2_all.deb lefse_1.0.8-3_all.deb > > This looked good - so we have installed everything as in the previous > Python2 based package. How does the latter work? > > sudo apt-get install lefse > run_lefse > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/bin/run_lefse", line 4, in <module> > from lefse import * > ImportError: No module named lefse > > > So we have the perfectly same problem that simply nobody noticed before! > >>> before I push? Why would run_lefse.py >>> and run_lefse differ when executed differently, assuming they are identical. >> >> Something is wrong with PYTHONPATH. I'd suggest you push and I'll have >> a look. > > Seems you were just not lucky with picking your target package which > simply did not worked in the first place. > > This issue can be solved by simply installing lefse.py which I did in my > last commit. Unfortunately this is not all. You might blame the person > who is responsible for this package (which is ... uhhmmm, lalala) for > not testing properly at least the latest uploaded version. This brings > up the need for a possibly extremely simple autopkgtest: Just running all > provided scripts. > > Once the script was running I realised that some Build-Depends were > missing. I now added debian/createmanpages to create manpages for each > script (+some manual editing). That way at least each script was > running once. > > Would you volunteer to write some autopkgtest - even if it would be > very simple to just call the script? > > Background: I packaged lefse since it is needed for metabit[1] which I > started to package but failed to finalise. Since I was running some > tests on metabit which is supposed to use lefse I simply assumed it > would work properly. Obviously it is was not. The non-zero user > base[2] (mind the green line for votes which means real usage) did not > minded to send a bug report. The fact that we probably can not trust > our users to report bugs is something which is depressing me over and > over but I have no real clue what to do about it. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/metabit > [2] https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=lefse&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature