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

Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#1062404: orthanc-python: flaky autopkgtest: Test failed with



Hi Sébastien,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 12:51:56PM +0100, Sébastien Jodogne wrote:
> On 3/30/24 12:41, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > > Once compilation is done, how can I execute autopkgtest? I have tried
> > > multiple variations, including the most basic:
> > > 
> > > $ sudo autopkgtest . -- null
> > > $ sudo autopkgtest ../build-area/orthanc-python_4.1+ds-2_amd64.changes --
> > > null
> > 
> > This should work I suppose, in an unstable system.
> > I however pass in the .deb instead of the .changes file.
> > 
> > This is the command I use incase that helps you:
> > 
> > $ sudo autopkgtest -B ../*.deb -- schroot unstable-amd64-sbuild
> > 
> > You could use `-- null` if you don't use a schroot.
> > 
> > If this still does not work, can you share the error that you see?
> 
> In all of those commands (including yours, as well as if using ".deb"
> instead of ".changes"), I always get the attached log.
> 
> The actual test seems to never be executed: The autopkgtest command always
> stops with the "Reading package lists...". Nothing more happens.
> ...
> Removing autopkgtest-satdep (0) ...
> run-unit-test        SKIP Cannot enable needs-sudo restriction: no ordinary user available
> autopkgtest [12:47:49]: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ summary
> run-unit-test        SKIP Cannot enable needs-sudo restriction: no ordinary user available

For some reason, this is not taking needs-sudo restriction well. Can you try once with this
patch (no need to re-compile) and let me know if that helps?

diff --git a/debian/tests/control b/debian/tests/control
index 5e8c44d..4f9b12a 100644
--- a/debian/tests/control
+++ b/debian/tests/control
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 Tests: run-unit-test
 Depends: @, python3, orthanc, curl, libcurl4, orthanc-python, procps
-Restrictions: needs-sudo, allow-stderr, isolation-container
+Restrictions: allow-stderr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: