Now that gdebi-core is in back in lenny I've got my automatic package
testing robot working on lenny again. (I got stalled last time due to
leaving Canonical and being busy for a while.)
Mostly what it does right now is build a package, discover that the
package doesn't have any autopkgtest tests
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:10:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Now that gdebi-core is in back in lenny I've got my automatic package
> testing robot working on lenny again. (I got stalled last time due to
> leaving Canonical and being busy for a while.)
>
> Mostly what it does right now is build
Gonéri Le Bouder writes ("Re: automatic bug filing by test robot"):
> Sorry for promoting my pet toy but I think your script would be a
> great input.
Right ...
> I'm working improving svnbuildstat to be able to support different input. The
> idea is:
> -a databas
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm hoping to shortly turn on the automatic bug filing mechanism.
> I'm writing now to give people a chance to object :-).
[...]
> very few other packages. Most autopkgtest reports are FTBFS problems.
I object filing FTBFS automatically. In some cases, th
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-28 09:19]:
> I object filing FTBFS automatically. In some cases, the FTBFS is a failure
...
> Also, how would you check that a bug has not already been filed
> manually by another user?
Totally agreed.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
Hi Ian,
nice work! but...
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 23:10, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm hoping to shortly turn on the automatic bug filing mechanism.
> I'm writing now to give people a chance to object :-).
/me objects / suggests to first enable mails to some mailinglist (this one?),
instead of a
Holger Levsen wrote:
/me objects / suggests to first enable mails to some mailinglist (this one?),
instead of actually filing bugs. Then we can review the reports and then
decide whether it's working as well as it should.
Maybe send the report to @package.debian.org instead?
As a maintainer
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 09:38:54PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Maybe send the report to @package.debian.org instead?
>
> As a maintainer I would like to know when a package fails to build for
> any reason, even if it is due to factors outside my control.
>
I'm inclined to agree. I would find it ve
Jonathan Wiltshire writes ("Re: automatic bug filing by test robot"):
> I'm inclined to agree. I would find it very useful to get reports, but
> not as a bug against my package.
That seems to be the consensus. Fair enough. I shall see about
getting a PTS tag for these repo
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 07:11:51PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan Wiltshire writes ("Re: automatic bug filing by test robot"):
> > I'm inclined to agree. I would find it very useful to get reports, but
> > not as a bug against my package.
>
> That seems t
On 28-Aug-08, 02:19 (CDT), Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, how would you check that a bug has not already been filed
> manually by another user?
Why, the same way all the manual duplicate bug filers[1] check :-)
Steve
[1] yes, I've filed a few duplicates in my life, no need to
On 28/08/08 at 09:19 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm hoping to shortly turn on the automatic bug filing mechanism.
> > I'm writing now to give people a chance to object :-).
> [...]
> > very few other packages. Most autopkgtest reports are FTBFS prob
On 27/08/08 at 22:10 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Also, if you have any comments about the format of the email,
> supporting references, etc., that would be helpful.
I think that we have a problem with the way we export data from
automated tests. Consensus is (I think) that bugs should not be filed
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:10:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> it also does test installs. This is useful as it tests buildability
> and installability
Can you expand what do you mean by "test installs"?
The main points which are not clear to me are: are dependencies taken
into consideration? wh
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: automatic bug filing by test robot"):
> I think that we have a problem with the way we export data from
> automated tests. Consensus is (I think) that bugs should not be filed
> automatically, unless the person filing the bugs is reasonably sure of
&g
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: automatic bug filing by test robot"):
> Can you expand what do you mean by "test installs"?
The equivalent of
apt-get install
(without a controlling terminal and with a noninteractive debconf
frontend).
> The main points which ar
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 06:35:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: automatic bug filing by test robot"):
> > I think that we have a problem with the way we export data from
> > automated tests. Consensus is (I think) that bugs should not be filed
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 06:35:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Maybe you should focus on providing the data in a machine-parseable
> > format, and write a seperate tool that would allow to gather data from
> > all the tests we are running (I can think of lintian and piuparts, at
> > least), and d
18 matches
Mail list logo
