Re: ghostscript testing
Hi, On 27/03/2019 00:00, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 26.03.19 um 15:55 schrieb Sylvain Beucler: > [...] >> Markus, I read in the archives that you backported fixes in earlier >> security uploads - any other tip? :) > I did all the testing myself by setting up a Jessie environment and then > I tested with the POCs and the command line tools to spot any > regressions. I could reproduce all issues, so at one point I was > confident the problem at hand was solved. Without an extensive test > suite or a reproducer this is quite challenging. Since we made the > decision to follow new upstream releases, we just have to make sure that > reverse-dependencies keep working. So I would do some smoke testing and > verify that the reported problem is fixed. Thanks for confirming I didn't miss anything. Waiting for 9.27 then. Cheers! Sylvain
Re: ghostscript testing
Hi, Am 26.03.19 um 15:55 schrieb Sylvain Beucler: [...] > Markus, I read in the archives that you backported fixes in earlier > security uploads - any other tip? :) I did all the testing myself by setting up a Jessie environment and then I tested with the POCs and the command line tools to spot any regressions. I could reproduce all issues, so at one point I was confident the problem at hand was solved. Without an extensive test suite or a reproducer this is quite challenging. Since we made the decision to follow new upstream releases, we just have to make sure that reverse-dependencies keep working. So I would do some smoke testing and verify that the reported problem is fixed. Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ghostscript testing
Hi, On 25/03/2019 16:13, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > On 25/03/2019 16:11, Sylvain Beucler wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I prepared an update for ghostscript. >> https://people.debian.org/~beuc/lts/ghostscript/ >> >> Even if we recently rebased to the latest upstream in jessie, the >> upstream patches did not apply cleanly and I did my best to replicate >> the changes. >> Note: we ship a 9.26*a* version which upstream does not provide publicly >> AFAICS (plus it was dfsg-modified), but the conflicts are due to >> upstream's master branch. >> >> Upstream seems to keep their test suite private. The documentation >> reference a "smoke.ps" file that was removed years ago, and even then it >> depended on PS files that I cannot locate. >> https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.26/Release.htm#Testing >> >> Is there a known test suite for ghostscript? >> (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26 > [hit a shortcut by accident] > > (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26b and backport it?) Emilio kindly provided some info in private. Debian Security intends to ship 9.27 when it comes out, so I'll probably follow suite, given my limited understanding of PostScript and the lack of test suite. Emilio got the info privately as the previous uploader. In the spirit of our continued transparency I would recommend to make recaps such as this one on the list, because browsing archives is usually informative and time-saving :) The previous ghostscript upload also benefited from private real-life testing on a cluster that was since then upgraded to squeeze, so ghostscript testing remains an open issue. Another argument in favor of going with 9.27. Markus, I read in the archives that you backported fixes in earlier security uploads - any other tip? :) Cheers! Sylvain
Re: ghostscript testing
On 25/03/2019 16:11, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > Hi, > > I prepared an update for ghostscript. > https://people.debian.org/~beuc/lts/ghostscript/ > > Even if we recently rebased to the latest upstream in jessie, the > upstream patches did not apply cleanly and I did my best to replicate > the changes. > Note: we ship a 9.26*a* version which upstream does not provide publicly > AFAICS (plus it was dfsg-modified), but the conflicts are due to > upstream's master branch. > > Upstream seems to keep their test suite private. The documentation > reference a "smoke.ps" file that was removed years ago, and even then it > depended on PS files that I cannot locate. > https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.26/Release.htm#Testing > > Is there a known test suite for ghostscript? > (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26 [hit a shortcut by accident] (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26b and backport it?) Cheers! Sylvain
ghostscript testing
Hi, I prepared an update for ghostscript. https://people.debian.org/~beuc/lts/ghostscript/ Even if we recently rebased to the latest upstream in jessie, the upstream patches did not apply cleanly and I did my best to replicate the changes. Note: we ship a 9.26*a* version which upstream does not provide publicly AFAICS (plus it was dfsg-modified), but the conflicts are due to upstream's master branch. Upstream seems to keep their test suite private. The documentation reference a "smoke.ps" file that was removed years ago, and even then it depended on PS files that I cannot locate. https://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.26/Release.htm#Testing Is there a known test suite for ghostscript? (or maybe we should just wait for some 9.26 Cheers! Sylvain
