On Wed, 2021-09-29 at 18:59 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Would you be willing to revert your commit that bumped the visibility
> [1] until we can figure out a better way to proceed?
Reverted.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:54 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> I agree, and would like to see the new tag downgraded below the W:
> level.
Taking great pride in the fact that Lintian is team-maintained, I am
reluctant to act here. Would you be willing to revert your commit that
bumped the
Hello,
On Sun 12 Sep 2021 at 07:07PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I see lintian has recently started emitting warnings for packages that
> have autopkgtests, but only superficial autopkgtests. I think this is
> counterproductive.
>
> Obviously, if a package can have reliable autopkgtests that
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 16:50:03 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> As a side note, the old tag to which you seem attached took a stance
> against superficial tests.
I think the text of its recommendation to maintainers was written before
the special handling of the "superficial" restriction was
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 3:27 PM Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> the first of those is the new missing-tests-control, and I would
> agree with making it an error.
Done. It is now an error. [1]
I'll note that the condition is somewhat artificial. It would probably
be better to declare all testing
On Sun, 2021-09-12 at 23:27 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I don't think it makes sense for the new superficial-tests to be considered
> worse (= higher severity) than the old testsuite-autopkgtest-missing.
I was initially thinking of cases were the package is perfectly
possible to test properly
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 13:49:35 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Either way, the project relies here on the fact
> that having a meaningful testsuite may provide a faster migration from
> unstable to testing.
I think there might be some misunderstanding here. Tests that are marked
with
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 1:17 PM Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> If that's the case, I would have expected it to be emitted for packages
> that have absolutely no autopkgtest coverage
You are right! The tag is issued when 'Testsuite: autopkgtest' was
declared in d/control but no d/tests/control is
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 12:48:36 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:09 AM Simon McVittie wrote:
> >
> > lintian has recently started emitting warnings for packages that
> > have autopkgtests, but only superficial autopkgtests.
>
> The tag was implemented in response to
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:09 AM Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> lintian has recently started emitting warnings for packages that
> have autopkgtests, but only superficial autopkgtests.
The tag was implemented in response to Bug#932870. [1] It was
originally suggested on OFTC#debci by dkg (who
Package: lintian
Version: 2.105.0
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian...@lists.debian.org, Paul Wise
I see lintian has recently started emitting warnings for packages that
have autopkgtests, but only superficial autopkgtests. I think this is
counterproductive.
Obviously, if a package can have
11 matches
Mail list logo
