Hello Stefan, Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-06-13 23:42 +0200]: > [ Adding autopkgtest-devel to recipients, where I've also just bounced > your mail. If you're interested in this topic, please consider > subscribing to that, very low traffic, list. ]
Subscribed. Thanks for bouncing it, as I cannot mail Ian directly (his MTA rejects my mail server). > Oh, that's nice, thanks! Is the test execution environment something > that can easily deployed elsewhere? Not directly yet, but we are planning to. From bottom up it's autopkgtest running in a VM with a daily development release install triggered by Jenkins jobs: https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Quantal/view/AutoPkg%20Test/ I'm not sure whether the scripts to do the back and forth setup/reporting are in some public branch, Jean-Baptiste would know. Locally I test with something like sudo adt-run foo.dsc --- adt-virt-null which is essentially what these Jenkins jobs do as well. > I'm also curious about the implementation: do you actually use > autopkgtest as low level test runner for Jenkins integration or...? We do. We had to fix a number of bugs there, they just recently were uploaded to Debian as well (thanks Ian). > As a temporary alternative to a hardcoded list, Stuart's proposal to use > Contents-source.gz is clearly better. Right, that would do as well. However, I don't see this on http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/ ? We don't build a Contents-source.gz on Ubuntu either. > As long as it stays as a XS-* header (which, for the history, it's also > how Vcs-* fields came into existence), no tool change is needed. Not needed, but it would be nice if dpkg-source could just add it automatically, so that developers don't need to care about it. > We should just agree upon a name. But if we want to have hopes to > promote it to something more official, I think it should rather be > independent from autopkgtest. Fully agree. It should be specific to this standard (developed as DEP-8), which does not have a name yet apparently? > How about something like "XS-Testsuite: runtime", where the key is > actually a space separate list of values values. Right now only > "runtime" [1] makes sense, but others might appear in the future. Perhaps "system-integration" or "install"/"installed" (as opposed to "build" test which are run during package build from debian/rules) might be clearer? I saw that coming: There would be little dispute about adding a header, but lots of difficulty to find a good name. :-) Perhaps we should think about an actual name for DEP-8 first (similar to what we had with DEP-5 -> "copyright 1.0 format"), and then use an abbreviation of that for the XS-Testsuite: value? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
