Re: autopkgtest-pkg-perl going forward
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 03:30:27PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Niko Tyni wrote (11 Oct 2014 12:06:46 GMT) :
> > 2. people uploading a package with a Testsuite header should try to
> > verify it works. This probably means setting up a chroot for adt-run
> > to do it properly; there are some pointers for this in autopkgtest.html.
>
> I'm a little bit concerned about this one. I'm pretty sure I can live
> with it, but it's still probably worth raising this point: this
> requirement adds manual steps to the "updating a package" workflow.
> I'd like to question why humans need to do it by hand, while an army
> of robots, somewhere, are going to do it anyway.
Thanks for raising this. Gregor already answered it pretty
thoroughly. I'll just add that I hope everybody's still doing local test
builds of arch:any packages even though we have source only uploads.
> So, all in all I'm not sure if it's worth it to run the autopkgtests
> on an individual package before uploading. I believe I'd rather spend
> the same time to make sure I'm subscribed to the relevant feeds on
> ci.d.n, so that I'll be aware when something I've uploaded breaks
> anything (that could be its own autopkgtests, or other packages').
One part of this that hasn't been mentioned yet is ci.debian.net
integration with our other tools. It would be cool to have a PET section
of packages with autopkgtest failures, and an IRC bot might be nice
too. Any takers? :)
I see there's a per package RSS feed and a global feed at
<http://ci.debian.net/data/feeds/>. Might be worth asking Antonio for
a maintainer feed too if that would help.
The mass import clearly hasn't been done yet, but there are currently
119 tested packages matching lib.*-perl (presumably declaring an explicit
Testsuite header already), and just two failures. I've filed bugs about
those two. So we're in a pretty good state for now.
--
Niko Tyni ntyni@debian.org
Reply to: