On April 9, 2023 12:51:33 PM UTC, Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> wrote:
>Hello. This is an interesting bug indeed, because it forces us to re-read
>the specification and maybe suggest changes if we see that it's incomplete
>or just suboptimal.
>
>https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/raw/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
>
>This is the current wording:
>
>> The cwd of each test is guaranteed to be the root of the source package,
>> which will have been unpacked but not built.
>
>My interpretation of that is that the cwd of each test is guaranteed
>to be the root of the source package in unpacked form.
>
>Under this interpretation, running autopkgtest on a built tree does not follow
>the specification and is not required to work.
>
>Somebody could also interpret it that "you should not rely on the package
>being built",
>as it "may or may not have been built".
This was always my interpretation, especially given there is an explicit
restriction to have a *built* tree:
build-needed
The tests need to be run from a built source tree. The test runner
will build the source tree (honouring the source package's build
dependencies), before running the tests. However, the tests are
*not* entitled to assume that the source package's build
dependencies will be installed when the test is run.
>But I would argue that if that was the intended meaning, the wording would be
>quite different.
>
>So, I would reassign this to whatever package is running autopkgtest in a
>built tree
>(even if it's autopkgtest itself), as I believe the specification is not being
>followed.
My above test was done using
autopkgtest hello_2.10-3.dsc --setup-commands='apt-get update' -- docker
--remote debian:sid
But I guess that virt implementation doesn't matter too much here.
>On the other hand, if we are going to allow both built and not built trees,
>maybe
>it would be a good idea to change the wording first so that it's clear for
>everybody.
>
>Thanks.
