On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" <po...@debian.org>
wrote:
>On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau"
>> <po...@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to
>>> the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during the
>>> build process and as an autopkgtest.
>>>
>>> You can find the MR here:
>>>
>>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/24
>>>
>>> People present at the BoF seemed to think this was a good idea. If you
>>> don't please reply to this message and make yourself heard :)
>>
>> I understand the theory and why it's a good idea to run the test suite. I
>> don't think it ought to be a hard requirement. I have several packages
>> where there's a test suite, but I don't run it:
>>
>> 1. The largest set is packages that need test only dependencies which are
>> not packaged. When I am packaging something new which has a test suite,
>> then I generally package any needed test depends. If those test depends also
>> need test depends packaged, I generally stop and don't enable tests for
>> things that are only in the archives to support tests. Noseofyeti is an
>> example of this.
>
>That sounds like a valid technical reason not to run the tests to me :)
>
>> 2. There's at least one case where Debian has customizations that cause the
>> test suite to fail, but the failures don't seem to cause any real problems.
>> If anyone wants to make it so the weasyprint test suite works on Debian,
>> please knock yourself out.
>
>Again, as long as you document that, I don't think it would go against the
>proposed policy change.
>
>> 3. I also maintain multiple packages which require network access to run
>> their test suite, so they can't run tests during build, only autopkgtests.
>
>Same.
>
Except for #3, I don't get that from the wording in the MR. I don't think not
worth the trouble is a technical reason. I think the real rule that's being
proposed is that packages must run the test suit or document why not. I don't
have a problem with that, but I don't think that's what it actually says now.
I think if you were to change must to should and strike the word technical
before reason, it would accomplish the same thing and be clearer. I could
support that.
Scott K
