On July 29, 2024 3:14:33 PM UTC, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr> wrote: >> Maybe we indeed want a "minimal" autopkgtest environment, but many >> upstream tests will fail in those and I don't see an automatic way to test >> a random package in this way. > >Even if not minimal, at least correspond to the upstream declares dependencies. > >by 'declare' I am not even sure of the meaning. > >dependencies of the test can be different from the required installed ones. > >Maybe we should install only the python binaries and the dependencies marked ><!nocheck>. > >Is there a standard in the Python community for the test dependencies ? > As usual, there are several. Scott K
- Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream tes... Louis-Philippe Véronneau
- Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the ups... PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
- Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the... Martin
- Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running... PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
- Re: Policy Change Proposal: Run... Andrey Rakhmatullin
- Re: Policy Change Proposal... PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
- Re: Policy Change Prop... Scott Kitterman
- Re: Policy Change Prop... Andrey Rakhmatullin
- Re: Policy Change ... PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
- Re: Policy Change ... Andrey Rakhmatullin
- Re: Policy Change ... Julian Gilbey
- Re: Policy Change ... Andrey Rakhmatullin
- Re: Policy Change Proposal... Simon McVittie
- Re: Policy Change Prop... Andrey Rakhmatullin
- Re: Policy Change ... Simon McVittie
- Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the ups... Scott Kitterman
- Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the... Simon McVittie