Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Paul, On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 09:19:48PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > > No. The majority of packages r-cran-* packages has "real" tests that > > are manually crafted in addition to autopkgtest-pkg-r. > > Great. Loving it. :-) > > I think that's OK since as I said most of the packages have manual > > tests. So skipping pkg-r-autopkgtest will not really influence the > > tests of the packages in practice. > > Because you use the word "skipping" here, I think you misunderstood my > intentions. What I mean is that pkg-r-autopkgtest is run, but if it > determines that it hasn't done any substantial testing, it can exit with > exit code 77 which, with the skippable restriction, will result in a > NEUTRAL autopkgtest result which is exactly the same as a successful > superficial test. May be I was a bit sloppy in my wording here. I wanted to express: Whatever the (non-failing) pkg-r-autopkgtest result might be the manually crafted test will beat it with a sensible and working test. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Andreas, On 15-04-2021 21:13, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:32:40PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >>> We are working on it makeing them non-superficial. Its the case for >>> r-bioc-* currently[1] and the plan is to do this for all R packages. >> >> Aha, so non r-bioc-* packages are superficial at this moment. > > Not really. Sorry, then I misunderstood. >>> However, this is for the next release. Marking those packages >>> superficial that do not come with a proper test can be done as well, >>> but not in the current freeze period. >> >> I'll think about what this means for the Release Team. Normally when I >> learn of packages that try to migrate to testing with superficial tests >> not marked as such I would add a manual block. Maybe I'll see if I can >> generate such a list for all autopkgtest-pkg-r using packages (without >> bioc in the name). > > No. The majority of packages r-cran-* packages has "real" tests that > are manually crafted in addition to autopkgtest-pkg-r. Great. Loving it. >> Thanks for letting us know. And yes, please fix this. While typing this, >> I have one suggestion, we should make autopkgtest-pkg-r skippable and >> pkg-r-autopkgtest should exit 77 if there's no hook nor any tests to run >> (and without bioc currently). The overall result of skipped tests is >> equal to successful tests marked as superficial. I believe we >> can/could/should very well do that now in the freeze, after we fix >> autodep8. What do you think? > > I think that's OK since as I said most of the packages have manual > tests. So skipping pkg-r-autopkgtest will not really influence the > tests of the packages in practice. Because you use the word "skipping" here, I think you misunderstood my intentions. What I mean is that pkg-r-autopkgtest is run, but if it determines that it hasn't done any substantial testing, it can exit with exit code 77 which, with the skippable restriction, will result in a NEUTRAL autopkgtest result which is exactly the same as a successful superficial test. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Paul, On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:32:40PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > > We are working on it makeing them non-superficial. Its the case for > > r-bioc-* currently[1] and the plan is to do this for all R packages. > > Aha, so non r-bioc-* packages are superficial at this moment. Not really. > > However, this is for the next release. Marking those packages > > superficial that do not come with a proper test can be done as well, > > but not in the current freeze period. > > I'll think about what this means for the Release Team. Normally when I > learn of packages that try to migrate to testing with superficial tests > not marked as such I would add a manual block. Maybe I'll see if I can > generate such a list for all autopkgtest-pkg-r using packages (without > bioc in the name). No. The majority of packages r-cran-* packages has "real" tests that are manually crafted in addition to autopkgtest-pkg-r. > Thanks for letting us know. And yes, please fix this. While typing this, > I have one suggestion, we should make autopkgtest-pkg-r skippable and > pkg-r-autopkgtest should exit 77 if there's no hook nor any tests to run > (and without bioc currently). The overall result of skipped tests is > equal to successful tests marked as superficial. I believe we > can/could/should very well do that now in the freeze, after we fix > autodep8. What do you think? I think that's OK since as I said most of the packages have manual tests. So skipping pkg-r-autopkgtest will not really influence the tests of the packages in practice. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Andreas, On 09-04-2021 10:50, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:02:02PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> On 08-04-2021 21:52, Andreas Tille wrote: >>> Ahhh, I assumed that basic autopkgtest-pkg-r is consider superficial. >> >> That's an interesting point. Should they (they're not)? Maybe with R >> packages autopkgtest-pkg-r may or may not be very extensive? If that's >> true, than it's currently basically up to individual packages to mark >> themselves superficial when using autopkgtest-pkg-r. > > We are working on it makeing them non-superficial. Its the case for > r-bioc-* currently[1] and the plan is to do this for all R packages. Aha, so non r-bioc-* packages are superficial at this moment. > However, this is for the next release. Marking those packages > superficial that do not come with a proper test can be done as well, > but not in the current freeze period. I'll think about what this means for the Release Team. Normally when I learn of packages that try to migrate to testing with superficial tests not marked as such I would add a manual block. Maybe I'll see if I can generate such a list for all autopkgtest-pkg-r using packages (without bioc in the name). Thanks for letting us know. And yes, please fix this. While typing this, I have one suggestion, we should make autopkgtest-pkg-r skippable and pkg-r-autopkgtest should exit 77 if there's no hook nor any tests to run (and without bioc currently). The overall result of skipped tests is equal to successful tests marked as superficial. I believe we can/could/should very well do that now in the freeze, after we fix autodep8. What do you think? Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Paul, On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:02:02PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 08-04-2021 21:52, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Ahhh, I assumed that basic autopkgtest-pkg-r is consider superficial. > > That's an interesting point. Should they (they're not)? Maybe with R > packages autopkgtest-pkg-r may or may not be very extensive? If that's > true, than it's currently basically up to individual packages to mark > themselves superficial when using autopkgtest-pkg-r. We are working on it makeing them non-superficial. Its the case for r-bioc-* currently[1] and the plan is to do this for all R packages. However, this is for the next release. Marking those packages superficial that do not come with a proper test can be done as well, but not in the current freeze period. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/dh-r/-/blob/master/scripts/pkg-r-autopkgtest#L15 -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Andreas, On 08-04-2021 21:52, Andreas Tille wrote: > Ahhh, I assumed that basic autopkgtest-pkg-r is consider superficial. That's an interesting point. Should they (they're not)? Maybe with R packages autopkgtest-pkg-r may or may not be very extensive? If that's true, than it's currently basically up to individual packages to mark themselves superficial when using autopkgtest-pkg-r. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Hi Sebastian, On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 05:47:04PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > unblock r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6 > > This package will need another: > > Not built on buildd: arch all binaries uploaded by tille, a new source-only > upload is needed to allow migration Aaaargh, stupid mistake - thanks for watching me. > Since the package is not a key package and has autopkgtests, an unblock > is not required. Ahhh, I assumed that basic autopkgtest-pkg-r is consider superficial. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#986628: unblock: r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
X-Debbugs-Cc: 986...@bugs.debian.org
Please unblock package r-cran-rcdklibs
[ Reason ]
Fixing bug #986467.
[ Impact ]
The package would be unusable due to a missing Dependency.
[ Tests ]
Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-r
[ Risks ]
The package is a dependency of some leaf packages with a low
popcon value.
[ Checklist ]
[*] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
[*] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
[*] attach debdiff against the package in testing
unblock r-cran-rcdklibs/2.3+dfsg-6
diff -Nru r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/changelog
r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/changelog
--- r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/changelog 2020-11-18 11:35:15.0
+0100
+++ r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/changelog 2021-04-08 10:46:24.0
+0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+r-cran-rcdklibs (2.3+dfsg-6) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Add missing Depends libcdk-java
+Closes: #986467
+
+ -- Andreas Tille Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:46:24 +0200
+
r-cran-rcdklibs (2.3+dfsg-5) unstable; urgency=medium
* Versioned (Build-)Depends to libcdk-java (>= 2.3.134.g1bb9a64587)
diff -Nru r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/control
r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/control
--- r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/control 2020-11-18 11:35:15.0
+0100
+++ r-cran-rcdklibs-2.3+dfsg/debian/control 2021-04-08 10:46:24.0
+0200
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
dh-r,
r-base-dev,
r-cran-rjava,
- libcdk-java
+ libcdk-java (>= 2.3.134.g1bb9a64587)
Standards-Version: 4.5.1
Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/r-cran-rcdklibs
Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/r-cran-rcdklibs.git
@@ -18,7 +18,8 @@
Package: r-cran-rcdklibs
Architecture: all
Depends: ${R:Depends},
- ${misc:Depends}
+ ${misc:Depends},
+ libcdk-java (>= 2.3.134.g1bb9a64587)
Recommends: ${R:Recommends}
Suggests: ${R:Suggests}
Description: Chemistry Development Kit (CDK) libraries packaged for GNU R
