Re: [Piuparts-devel] RFC: Ideas around pkg-perl-autopkgtest
Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Freitag, 29. August 2014, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > But then again, adequate warnings don't count as "fail" in piuparts.
> > Look for "but adequate" on e.g. https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/
> thats currently correct, as all the severe issues adequate detects are also
> detected by piuparts anyway...
> > And on the per-maintainer or per-package view, they don't seem to
> > appear yet: E.g.
> > https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/bin_or_sbin_binary_requires_usr_lib_library
> > _inadequate_issue.html lists cifs-utils, but neither
> > https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/c/cifs-utils.html says anything
> > about this issue nor does
> > https://firstname.lastname@example.org
> > ebian.org.html
> > So the situation there is definitely suboptimal. Cc'ing the Piuparts
> > Developers for further input on this.
> do you think that bin_or_sbin_binary_requires_usr_lib_library should cause a
> piuparts test failure? IOW: does it at least warrant important bugs, maybe
> even serious ones?
No, my intention is a different one: Piuparts should list all adequate
issues on the per-package or per-maintainer to make the maintainers
aware of these issues. Because that's where the maintainers look for
their packages. (In addition it would get even more attention if the
PTS or the new tracker would list them on the package page.)
Otherwise it can't replace running adequate in autopkgtest tests.
,''`. | Axel Beckert <email@example.com>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5