On Tue, 2022-08-02 at 10:42 +0800, Bo YU wrote: > k, thanks for let me know that. This is also what I worry about. > Maybe some packages can be built on riscv64 arch, but they may not > work as our imagination. You can gain some confidence in your patches by using testing, either automatic testing (during/after the build) or manual testing. The best way to do that would be to make sure that dh_auto_test runs the upstream build test suite and ensure you run the autopkgtests after the build. Both sbuild and pbuilder have ways of doing turning on autopkgtests. If there are no such tests, it is a good idea to send upstream and or the Debian maintainer patches to add some if possible. https://manpages.debian.org/man/dh_auto_test https://ci.debian.net/doc/ When there are no automatic tests, the automatic tests are superficial or trivial or you want to have more confidence, you can do manual testing. The Debian install/live images team have been working on a service called ditto for registering manual test procedures and results but it is not completed and running yet. The LTS team have a small list of manual test suite instructions and the Debian QA wiki has links to a small number of other manual test suites. For packages without manual testing guides, you can read the documentation, start up the program and see what happens, checking for segfaults, broken features etc. Be sure to check the issues don't happen on amd64 too. https://salsa.debian.org/images-team/ditto https://lts-team.pages.debian.net/wiki/LTS-TestSuites.html https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part