On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:38:57PM +0100, Serafeim (Serafi) Zanikolas wrote: > > Probably adequate is the logical place for this test, but adequate > > doesn't build/run on ports architectures since it moved to golang, > > so piuparts should probably keep its tests on those arches until > > adequate moves to a more portable language or golang gets ported. > that's because unsupported ports architectures have not caught up to go 1.21, > which was released ~1.5 year ago. I'd claim that that says more about the > viability of those ports, than the suitability of go for Debian tooling. if > you > feel strongly otherwise, I'd be happy to continue this discussion with a wider > audience at <[email protected]> rather than reply here
I dont feel strongly about this, but I'd like to point out that I
disagree. IMO it was wrong to rewrite adequate (as any central QA tool
for Debian) in a language which is not available *everywhere*.
> piuparts relies on humans to file bugs. autopkgtest on the other hand blocks
> package migration to testing (that is, when one does not run autopkgtst before
> upload). it's nice that some humans (including yourself) file bugs, but that
> doesn't seem viable long-term.
>90% of the piuparts bugs in the last 2 decades have been filed by 3 people,
this might not seem viable long-term to you, but in practice it has been
proven to be viable long-term.
also: piuparts failures block migrations without anyone having to file bugs,
just like autopkgtest. (oh, and for autopkgtests related bugs, there are also
very few humans filing them.)
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Any business accepting Bitcoin is participating in the human race’s suicide.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
