Resent again because the original e-mail bounced for the Debian Forensic team and the second address I got was wrong. On 08-05-18 13:28, Paul Gevers wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > [This e-mail is automatically sent. V1 (20180508)] > > As recently announced [1] Debian is now running autopkgtests in testing > to check if the migration of a new source package causes regressions. It > does this with the binary packages of the new version of the source > package from unstable. > > With a recent upload of python-arrow the autopkgtest of rekall > started to fail in testing [2]. This is currently delaying the migration > of python-arrow version 0.12.1-1 [3]. > > This e-mail is meant to trigger direct communication between the > maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what > changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. After all, > a regression in a reverse dependency can be due to one of the > following reasons (of course not complete): > * new bug in the candidate package (fix the package) > * bug in the test case that only gets triggered due to the update (fix > the reverse dependency, but see below) > * out-of-date reference date in the test case that captures a former bug > in the candidate package (fix the reverse dependency, but see below) > * deprecation of functionality that is used in the reverse dependency > and/or its test case (discussion needed) > Triaging tips are being collected on the Debian Wiki [4]. > > Unfortunately sometimes a regression is only intermittent. Ideally this > should be fixed, but it may be OK to just have the autopkgtest retried > (a link is available in the excuses [3]). > > There are cases where it is required to have multiple packages migrate > together to have the test cases pass, e.g. when there was a bug in a > regressing test case of a reverse dependency and that got fixed. In that > case the test cases need to be triggered with both packages from > unstable (reply to this e-mail and/or contact the ci-team [5]) or just wait > until the aging time is over (if the fixed reverse dependency migrates > before that time, the failed test can be retriggered [3]). > > Of course no system is perfect. In case a framework issue is suspected, > don't hesitate to raise the issue via BTS or to the ci-team [5] (reply to > me is also fine for initial cross-check). > > To avoid stepping on peoples toes, this e-mail does not automatically > generate a bug in the BTS, but it is highly recommended to forward this > e-mail there (psuedo-header boilerplate below [6,7]) in case it is > clear which package should solve this regression. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/05/msg00001.html > [2] https://ci.debian.net/packages/r/rekall/testing/amd64/ > [3] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-arrow > [4] https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/TriagingTips > [5] #debci on oftc or debian-ci@lists.debian.org > [6] python-arrow has an issue > ============ > Source: python-arrow > Version: 0.12.1-1 > Severity: normal or higher > Control: affects -1 src:rekall > User: debian-ci@lists.debian.org > Usertags: breaks > ============ > [7] rekall has an issue > ============ > Source: rekall > Version: 1.6.0+dfsg-2 > Severity: normal or higher > Control: affects -1 src:python-arrow > User: debian-ci@lists.debian.org > Usertags: needs-update > ============ >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature