Hi Dominique, gregor, and the rest, On 15-01-2020 19:33, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:23:20 +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: > >> Looks I've managed to block the migration of some libconfig-model-perl packages >> to testing.. >> >> Step 1. >> >> In libconfig-model-perl 2.138, I've (tried to) improve some warning messages. Good. >> These messages are tested in libconfig-model-tkui-perl. Which means that old >> libconfig-model-itself-perl (in testing) fails with new libconfig-model-perl >> 2.138 Ack, so libconfig-model-perl could document this with a versioned Breaks on libconfig-model-itself-perl. I'm saying "could" as you may say it's *only* the autopkgtest and nothing more. I'm just saying because if you do that, britney will ask for the autopkgtest of libconfig-model-itself-perl from unstable instead of testing. >> Step 2 >> >> So I've fixed these tests in libconfig-model-itself-perl 1.371, which build >> depends on libconfig-model-perl 2.138 (because the warnings messages have >> changed) britney doesn't take B-D relations into account when determining the test set from unstable. >> Step 3 >> >> autopkgtest blocks migration of new libconfig-model-perl because the tests of >> old libconfig-model-tkui-perl are broken with new libconfig-model-perl Ack. >> Step 4 >> >> migration of new libconfig-model-tkui-perl is blocked because its build >> dependencies cannot migrate to testing. Ack. >> Note that libconfig-model-itself-perl is also blocked for the same reason. > > Hrm, interesting situation :) > > The "logical" solution would be that they migrate together but > apparently britney+ci.d.n. don't consider this option. Because there are no binary package or test dependency relations that require that. > Which, if I'm not mistaken, might be a hint to a missing dependency > or more probably a missing Breaks. Most of the time, yes. Well, as said above, sometimes one doesn't want to add the versioned Breaks merrily for the autopkgtest failure. In that case, the only option one has is to ask the release team to intervene. > Maybe adding a Breaks to libconfig-model-perl on libconfig-model-tkui-perl > << 1.371 and libconfig-model-itself-perl << 2.019 would help? That should work, yes (I didn't check the version numbers). > But before I dive too much into guesswork, let's add elbrus to the CC > as the domain expert :) So, either add the versioned Breaks, or explain to the release team (but only me is fine too) why you consider a Breaks to be too strong for the situation. Paul PS: if this happens too often, we may want a "Breaks-Autopkgtest" field or something, but in the last year, that seems to be not really needed, albeit I had to manually intervene a couple of times.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature