Am Donnerstag, den 15.08.2019, 14:34 +0530 schrieb Utkarsh Gupta: > On 14/08/19 8:42 pm, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > can you please help me to examine, why this autopkgtest log shows "pass" > > instead of "fail"? gem2deb checking the dependencies actually fails missing > > jekyll. So why is this not reported as an autopkgtest failure? Any idea? > > Neither autopkgtest nor gem2deb have changed recently. Is this related to > > the > > apparmor issues reported in the log? > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-jekyll-data/-/jobs/276476 > > Heh, that is plain weird. > Something more weird is this test log: > https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-arbre/-/jobs/262117. > Pinging the same at #salsaci.
Yes, every issue seems to pass the salsa ci autopkgtest at the moment. So people, check the logs! > Also, just took a quick look at ruby-jekyll-data, it seems like > rubygems.org doesn't ship the test/* directory, which means testing for > autopkgtest doesn't make sense. autopkgtest runs at least the dependency checker and makes sure, the Depends field is correct. Maybe you could switch d/watch to point to github tarball instead and > import the missing directories from there. I'll move all the packages to the github tarballs within time. But ruby-jekyll- feed and ruby-jekyll-commonmark showed me, that enabling the tests costs a lot of time to fix unexpected issues: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-jekyll-feed/-/jobs/277123 So this will take some time. Regards, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
