Hi there! On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:00:44 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Freitag, 8. Juni 2012, Luca Capello wrote: >> When doing an install-upgrade test, the apt-get package installation >> should be forced from the first distribution set via -d (using the >> apt-get -t option). Otherwise, if the package being tested depends on >> the same binary version of other packages, then installation from >> official sources is not possible. Git patch attached. > > Your patch modifies install_packages_by_name() to unconditionally use the > first distribution which makes a lot of other cases fail...
I thought about that after having sent the bug report (the first idea being to add another argument to install_packages_by_name()...) and also got caught later when trying to tests Bacula's -dbg packages (install-purge failed because there is no such a package in sid). But you were quicker to disclose it ;-) >> I encountered this bug while testing the new bacula-console package, > > have you tried latest piuparts from git branch develop? No, because I thought that simply using piuparts.py would have not been enough. And I was/am a bit too lazy to rebuild it (I am trying to upload Bacula ASAP, see #639466). >> Piuparts logs are available upon request or simply grab the testing >> package at <http://pkg-bacula.alioth.debian.org/tmp/> ;-) > > please send me the log, > http://pkg-bacula.alioth.debian.org/tmp/bacula_5.2.6+dfsg-1_all.deb.piuparts > is not what I'm looking for :) This is why I wrote "grab the testing package", what you want could be:x <http://pkg-bacula.alioth.debian.org/tmp/bacula-console_5.2.6+dfsg-1~gismo1_amd64.deb.piuparts-0.44> <http://pkg-bacula.alioth.debian.org/tmp/bacula-console_5.2.6+dfsg-1~gismo1_amd64.deb.piuparts-Debian676694> <http://pkg-bacula.alioth.debian.org/tmp/bacula-console_5.2.6+dfsg-1~gismo1_amd64.deb.piuparts.diff.gz> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:18:16 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On 2012-06-08 23:17, Luca Capello wrote: >> When doing an install-upgrade test, the apt-get package installation >> should be forced from the first distribution set via -d (using the > > What is the exact command line failing? > There should be only one package source available during the test. I do not see why there should be only one package source, especially for those packages depending on another package from the same source package and with a strict dependency (as in bacula-console <-> bacula-common). Basically, my setup is the following: a) pbuilder builds the packages in base-sid b) dput/mini-dinstall adds the packages to my local APT repository c) piuparts tests the packages in pbuilder's base-sid-local, which has two main differences WRT base-sid: 1. /etc/apt/sources.list.d/local_luca.list deb file:/home/luca/public_html/debian gismo-unstable/ #deb-src file:/home/luca/public_html/debian gismo-unstable/ 2. /etc/apt/preferences.d/local_luca Package: * Pin: release a=gismo-unstable Pin-Priority: 500 The second difference is a workaround, because I want the local repository to be equal to unstable, otherwise the strict same-source-package dependencies are not installed and piuparts' install-upgrade fails. BTW, please note that the latter is caused by how I configured mini-dinstall, i.e. not simply 'unstable' and with 'experimental_release = 1': gismo-unstable should be considered like experimental (no automatic upgrades) and thus it gets by default a Pin-Priority of 1, see `man 5 apt_preferences` and: <http://people.debian.org/~gismo/debian/gismo-unstable/Release> > Can you provide a logfile with the "bad" behavior? See above. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
pgpcVtvCldgUw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
