Add autopkgtests for python-datacache, parallel-fastq-dump
Hello team, I'm interested in contributing towards the Debian Med Team and would like to be a part of it.I've had beginner experiences packaging some ruby gems for the Ruby Team. I've tried adding autopkgtest for python-datacache[1],parallel-fastq-dump[2] which are maintained by the Debian Med Team. I've opened a merge requests[3],[4] and would like someone to review my changes and suggest the necessary changes. Also the ci reprotest fails[5] for python-datacache and I don't know how to proceed further. I would like someone to guide as to what is to be done inorder to fix this. Thanks ! [1] - https://salsa.debian.org/mdb571/python-datacache [2] - https://salsa.debian.org/mdb571/parallel-fastq-dump [3] - https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-datacache/-/merge_requests/1 [4] - https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parallel-fastq-dump/-/merge_requests/2 [5] - https://salsa.debian.org/mdb571/python-datacache/-/jobs/2617267
Re: Add autopkgtests for python-datacache, parallel-fastq-dump
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:12:27AM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > Also the ci reprotest fails[5] for python-datacache and I don't know how to > > proceed further. > > I would like someone to guide as to what is to be done inorder to fix this. > > That failure is odd, reprotest works fine for me locally. However if I > download the artefacts from salsa and run a diffoscope[7] > I see: > > │ │ │ │ │ --rw-r--r-- 0 root (0) root (0) 8625 > 2022-03-28 18:25:48.00 > ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/datacache/download.py > │ │ │ │ │ +-rw-r--r-- 0 root (0) root (0) 8625 > 1970-10-13 05:44:00.00 > ./usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/datacache/download.py > > > I do not see any timestamp, so maybe this is random. In any case reprotest is > not very important and > can be ignored if it is hard to find what went south. And the pipeline passed now. https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-datacache/-/commit/4e5a8695789c8261e461fb7e6d775652e5db6c92/pipelines?ref=master I did nothing in the direction of fixing it, so probably it was just a flaky failure. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Packages in non-free can be autobuilt
Hi Another reminder about this: On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 01:33, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Looking at the cluster3 discussion, just a reminder that many packages > in non-free can be autobuilt just like packages in main: > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#marking-non-free-packages-as-auto-buildable > > This is also already happening for Debian Med packages: > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/vienna-rna > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vienna-rna cluster3 now needs a rebuild for the Python 3.10 as default transition [1]. Regards Graham [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.10-default.html
Re: Packages in non-free can be autobuilt
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:08:28PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: > Hi > > Another reminder about this: > > On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 01:33, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Looking at the cluster3 discussion, just a reminder that many packages > > in non-free can be autobuilt just like packages in main: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#marking-non-free-packages-as-auto-buildable > > > > This is also already happening for Debian Med packages: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/vienna-rna > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vienna-rna > > cluster3 now needs a rebuild for the Python 3.10 as default transition [1]. > > Regards > Graham Hi Graham, Thanks for the reminder. It's unfortunate, but the link to the full license that causes the package to be non-free is broken and I don't see a full copy of the license in either the package (neither in the sources nor in d/copyright) or in the email thread about the license [1]. For that reason, I'm hesitant about items (1) and (3) from the Developer's Reference [2]: > 1. Check whether it is legally allowed and technically possible to > auto-build the package; > > 2. Add XS-Autobuild: yes into the header part of debian/control; > > 3. Send an email to non-f...@buildd.debian.org and explain why the > package can legitimately and technically be auto-built. If there is already precedent for packages that violate multiple terms of the DFSG being legally and legitimately allowed to be auto-built, I am happy to revisit the matter. For the time-being, I have uploaded a binary package to move the transition along. Thanks, tony [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2016/02/msg0.html [2] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#marking-non-free-packages-as-auto-buildable signature.asc Description: PGP signature
