Bug#976037: marked as pending in ms-gsl
On Sat, 2020-12-26 at 15:59 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > if you want to test newer compilers, you are free to do it, but maybe you can > mark tests as flaky and > exit 77 if they fail, so at least you can see failures by manually looking at > logs... > > This way you won't block migration to testing, you won't be RC buggy, but you > will have the possibility to > have test logs. > > what do you think? In such case, I will not receive notifications about failed tests and so I can miss new errors. But I concluded that testing with GitLab CI on salsa.d.o would be better option. A test script for this can be written without need for release the package and it would not disturb anyone. On Sat, 2020-12-26 at 11:02 -0600, Steven Robbins wrote: > I believe there remain some corner cases where the build options of the > software under test may not precisely match those used in building googletest > -- leading to compile or test failures. One example is described in bug > #789267. > > That said, many projects do indeed successfully use the compiled library. So > you are probably fine. If you encounter odd failures, you can always revert > back to building gtest. Okay, thank you for comments. If something goes wrong, I will bear in mind possible differences in compilation flags. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#976037: marked as pending in ms-gsl
On Saturday, December 26, 2020 8:35:08 A.M. CST Nicholas Guriev wrote: > I have rewritten auto-tests, so they do not longer require non-default > versions of compilers. Since the tests with GCC rely on the same version > of the compiler that built Google Test framework, I think preconditions > of Bug#972944 lose its relevance, and there is no need to rebuild the > googletest from sources (in /usr/src/googletest). > > Steve Robbins, am I right in my judgments? I believe there remain some corner cases where the build options of the software under test may not precisely match those used in building googletest -- leading to compile or test failures. One example is described in bug #789267. That said, many projects do indeed successfully use the compiled library. So you are probably fine. If you encounter odd failures, you can always revert back to building gtest. Regards, -Steve signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#976037: marked as pending in ms-gsl
Hello Nicholas, if you want to test newer compilers, you are free to do it, but maybe you can mark tests as flaky and exit 77 if they fail, so at least you can see failures by manually looking at logs... This way you won't block migration to testing, you won't be RC buggy, but you will have the possibility to have test logs. what do you think? G. On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 17:35:08 +0300 Nicholas Guriev wrote: > I have rewritten auto-tests, so they do not longer require non-default > versions of compilers. Since the tests with GCC rely on the same version > of the compiler that built Google Test framework, I think preconditions > of Bug#972944 lose its relevance, and there is no need to rebuild the > googletest from sources (in /usr/src/googletest). > > Steve Robbins, am I right in my judgments? > > > On Sat, 2020-12-26 at 13:43 +, Nicholas Guriev wrote: > > Control: tag -1 pending > > > > Hello, > > > > Bug #976037 in ms-gsl reported by you has been fixed in the > > Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit > > message below and you can check the diff of the fix at: > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ms-gsl/-/commit/66a9aa1dea09f4619e2ced31c8f277fda0eaa9b9 > > > > > > Run autopkgtests only against default GCC and Clang > > > > * At Matthias Klose's request, removed auto-tests with fixed versions of > > GCC > > or Clang. Instead, use default compilers. > > * Rewritten the tests so that they include system-wide installed GSL > > headers. > > > > Closes: #976037 > > > > > > (this message was generated automatically) >
Bug#976037: marked as pending in ms-gsl
I have rewritten auto-tests, so they do not longer require non-default versions of compilers. Since the tests with GCC rely on the same version of the compiler that built Google Test framework, I think preconditions of Bug#972944 lose its relevance, and there is no need to rebuild the googletest from sources (in /usr/src/googletest). Steve Robbins, am I right in my judgments? On Sat, 2020-12-26 at 13:43 +, Nicholas Guriev wrote: > Control: tag -1 pending > > Hello, > > Bug #976037 in ms-gsl reported by you has been fixed in the > Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit > message below and you can check the diff of the fix at: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ms-gsl/-/commit/66a9aa1dea09f4619e2ced31c8f277fda0eaa9b9 > > > Run autopkgtests only against default GCC and Clang > > * At Matthias Klose's request, removed auto-tests with fixed versions of GCC > or Clang. Instead, use default compilers. > * Rewritten the tests so that they include system-wide installed GSL headers. > > Closes: #976037 > > > (this message was generated automatically) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Processed: Bug#976037 marked as pending in ms-gsl
Processing control commands: > tag -1 pending Bug #976037 [src:ms-gsl] ms-gsl's autopkg tests are broken by design Added tag(s) pending. -- 976037: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976037 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#976037: marked as pending in ms-gsl
Control: tag -1 pending Hello, Bug #976037 in ms-gsl reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit message below and you can check the diff of the fix at: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/ms-gsl/-/commit/66a9aa1dea09f4619e2ced31c8f277fda0eaa9b9 Run autopkgtests only against default GCC and Clang * At Matthias Klose's request, removed auto-tests with fixed versions of GCC or Clang. Instead, use default compilers. * Rewritten the tests so that they include system-wide installed GSL headers. Closes: #976037 (this message was generated automatically) -- Greetings https://bugs.debian.org/976037
