Re: Numpy migration?
Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> I'll do tonight. It however looks a bit suboptimal: when the CI test
>> with a new version fails for an old reverse dependency, then the new
>> version obviously breaks that old package. So, the breakage could be
>> detected (and taken into account) automatically. Why do we need a manual
>> action then?
>
> Let me try to suggest you see from another side: the goal of the Breaks
> field is to prevent a given combination of known broken packages to be
> installed.
> Currently autopkgtest blocks the migration of numpy, but if there wasn't
> that block a Breaks should still be added, as the astropy in testing is
> not compatible with the new numpy. The fact that it hints britney to
> trigger the right tests is just a "side effects", the Breaks should be
> added nonetheless, theoretically; in practice, we rarely did it before
> autopkgtest started blocking the testing migration.
I agree (with the explanation in your other mail) here; it just states
the fact that they really don't go together very well (at least in
situation similar to the specific CI test).
>> Python-astropy is however going to be removed completely; it has
>> however some cruft rdeps left in unstable. So, it cannot removed from
>> unstable now, and therefore still remains in testing and
>> (unnecessarily) blocks the numpy migration. Python-astropy already
>> has an RC bug, but its autoremoval from testing is still not even
>> announced yet.
>
> Maybe you could ask the release team to hasten the removal of
> python-astropy and rdeps from testing? If the plan is to not relase
> it in buster I don't see a reason to keep it further.
Couldn't we just also add a "breaks" to numpy? The important fact here
is, that the new numpy and the current python-astropy don't work
together; and this is independent of whether a fixed python-astropy
version exists.
This would remove one dependent party (release team) from the chain of
blocking causes for the migration.
>> The migration blocking CI tests seem to cause much more headaches than
>> just "fix your bugs"...
>
> Well, from what I see, it has helped a lot in this half a year detect a
> ton of regressions that would have otherwise bothered several people in
> a later moment…
I usually regularly look into my packages and file bugs if a CI test
fails caused by a buggy updated dependency. This works well without the
need of blocks. It would also work, when a failing CI test would
automatically trigger a bug report against the updated package, which
then could be re-assigned to the rdep in case the problem was there.
So, I value very much the CI tests by themself: they are the greatest
invention since sliced bread, but I still dislike the inflexible
handling of blocks. Often, a failing CI test makes a package only buggy
with respect to a certain feature, so it would correspond to a
"important" or "normal" bug severity. They are however always handled
like a "serious" bug by preventing migration. I miss the "That was not a
serious failure" button.
Thanks fur your help!
Best
Ole
Reply to: