Hi Ananthu, Ananthu C V, on 2025-06-12: >On 11 June 2025 20:59:00 UTC, "Étienne Mollier" <emollier@debian.org> wrote: >>Once the skip is implemented, you should see autopkgtest skip on >>i386, while amd64 runs should still pass: […] >>If we're lucky, this may be sufficient to allow bitseq to migrate. > >I am not fully sure about this, but I don't think skipped tests >are considered successful. That will then call for a manual >unblock from the RT at this point of freeze for the package to >migrate, since the package won't be getting the autopkgtest >bounty benefits. I actually agree with you, but I recall having had good surprises in similar conditions in recent uploads. Since there are good chances that I mixed up the recent migrations with distinct conditions, I added: >>However, if the migration tool still expects to obtain some sort >>of result on 32-bit platforms anyway, it may become necessary to >>carry extra steps to remove bitseq support from 32-bit Debian >>platforms completely. This may be justified anyway, since your >>autopkgtest reveals bitseq may be hardly usable if bowtie is >>missing from the processing workflow. That being said, thanks for your thoughts, this, and the fact that bowtie is needed as initial step to prepare data, really suggest it is quite likely that architecture removal for bitseq should not be delayed further and I consider proceeding this evening, if no one beats me at it. I believe that once bitseq is out of 32-bit release architectures, autopkgtest skips or failures for such architectures would become irrelevant and allow for automated migration, barring no regressions on architectures still being tested. Have a nice day, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org> : :' : pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/pts/0, please excuse my verbosity `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature