(Previously sent to ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com as suggested by
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration#How_could_installing_a_package_into_the_release_pocket_possibly_break_other_packages.3F
, but still in moderation after 10 days. If "non-developers are
moderated" in practice means "non-developers can't post", should this
wiki page and/or the list's description / autoreply message be changed?)
britney tries to run autopkgtests on all architectures, including ones
where the package under test does not exist:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/britney/+bug/1815131
For most arch-specific packages this is likely to produce a harmless
(other than wasted resources) "Always failed".
However, beignet's tests are all skippable, and were added before Ubuntu
autopkgtest had the skippable Restriction or the "all tests skipped"
neutral state. Hence, autopkgtest thinks they used to pass on
non-beignet architectures, when they never actually did:
http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/beignet
As they currently fail as uninstallable, this is considered to be a
regression trapping the package in -proposed:
http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#beignet
As it thinks they used to *pass*, marking the tests skip-not-installable
probably wouldn't be enough on its own. I could do that and also add a
"pass if beignet doesn't exist here, skip if it does" test
(Test-Command: true, Depends: @, Conflicts: @, Restrictions:
skip-not-installable ? though I haven't actually tried that), but that
feels silly, and would also make beignet skip rather than fail if it
became uninstallable on an architecture where it does exist.
Please let beignet out of -proposed:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/beignet/+bug/1815014
and consider checking whether any other packages are in a similar state.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
