Web lists-archives.com

Re: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions

James Clarke writes ("Re: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions"):
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 11:55:56AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Is that documented somewhere ?  I can't find it here
> >   https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/dpkg-dev/dpkg-source.1.en.html
> >   https://manpages.debian.org/stretch/dpkg-dev/deb-src-control.5.en.html
> It's in the .dsc, so you want dsc(5) :)

Ah, thanks.  Looks like there is no way to control it from the source
package.  There is a difficulty with implementing that.  The
Test-Triggers ought to mention autocomputed dependencies.  Eg, if we

      Depends: @

      Build-Depends: libbar-dev
      Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}

      Depends: libbar1 (>= 1.2-0)

then we should have

   Testsuite-Triggers: libbar1

This can't be computed from the source package because it depends on
the version of libbar-dev.  It can't even be computed as source upload

I think therefore that tests should be triggered based, additionally,
on binary package dependencies as found in the archive.  For every
binary package B which is produced by a source package S and depends
on another binary package D: tests of S should be retriggered for
updates to D.  "Depends on" would probably mean "is mentioned as first
alternative in any Depends on Recommends requirement".  This can be
determined from the published metadata without unpacking any source
packages or looking at Testsuite-Triggers.

(In theory this should only be done for binary packages B which are
not only generated by S but also mentioned, perhaps by virtue of `@',
in the Depends on a test of S.  This could be determined from
Testsuite-Triggers except that Testsuite-Triggers is specified to
exclude @ish dependencies.)

Arguably the test triggers from Depends in debian/tests/control are
less important and could even be dropped.  But in any case dpkg-source
should have explicit way to control or supplement.

I'm happy to write a patch to do the latter.  I'm not sure where I
would start with the former but I would be willing to give it a go if
someone would point me in the right direction.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.