Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 30, 2024 4:27:48 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: >On 2024-07-30 12:58, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> >> On July 30, 2024 2:47:08 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" >> wrote: >>> On 2024-07-30 11:09, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC,

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Louis-Philippe Véronneau
On 2024-07-30 12:58, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 30, 2024 2:47:08 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: On 2024-07-30 11:09, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 29, 2024

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 30, 2024 2:47:08 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: >On 2024-07-30 11:09, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> >> On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" >> wrote: >>> On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC,

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Louis-Philippe Véronneau
On 2024-07-30 11:09, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: Hello, As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submi

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: >On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> >> On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to >

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Louis-Philippe Véronneau
On 2024-07-29 23:08, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Hey, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote on 29/07/2024 at 10:53:11+0200: Hello, As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during the build process and

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Louis-Philippe Véronneau
On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: Hello, As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during the build process and as

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:07:27PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I understand the theory and why it's a good idea to run the test suite. I > don't think it ought to be a hard requirement. I have several packages where > there's a test suite, but I don't run it: > [...] Here's another case: t

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 29, 2024 3:14:33 PM UTC, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote: >> Maybe we indeed want a "minimal" autopkgtest environment, but many >> upstream tests will fail in those and I don't see an automatic way to test >> a random package in this way. > >Even if not minimal, at least correspond to th

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
> Maybe we indeed want a "minimal" autopkgtest environment, but many > upstream tests will fail in those and I don't see an automatic way to test > a random package in this way. Even if not minimal, at least correspond to the upstream declares dependencies. by 'declare' I am not even sure of the

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 12:07:27 +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > While I agree that running tests is good, it's not a universally > reasonable requirement. I agree. In a project as large as Debian, most requirements similar to this one at least need the qualifier "... unless there is a reason why w

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Pierre-Elliott Bécue
Hey, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote on 29/07/2024 at 10:53:11+0200: > Hello, > > As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this > change to the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, > both during the build process and as an autopkgtest. > > You can find the MR

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Andrey Rakhmatullin
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 03:30:39PM +0200, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote: > My use case, is to check that all the Dependencies computer by dh_python3 > from the build tools are indeed listed in the Depends of the binary package. Maybe we indeed want a "minimal" autopkgtest environment, but many up

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
My use case, is to check that all the Dependencies computer by dh_python3 from the build tools are indeed listed in the Depends of the binary package. I think about package whcih provide oiptional dependencies via the extra. In that case the extra should be declare when calling dh_python3. So I

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: >Hello, > >As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to >the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during the >build process and as an autopkgtest. > >You can find the MR he

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Martin
Quoting PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel : It install by default the build dependencies. which is not what peoples are doing when they install the packages. It should be possible to define the autopkgtest dependencies. This way we could catch missing dependencies in python- dependencies. Is it pos

python3-gpib installation layout stopped working

2024-07-29 Thread Vladimir Vassilev
Hi, I have been maintaining a package used by users of our gpib adapters and seems the python bindings for the libgpib0 C library stopped working at some point during the bookworm updates. Here is how the rules file currently looks: https://github.com/lightside-instruments/gpib-debian/blob

Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel
I have one concerne when using pybuild autopkgtest. It install by default the build dependencies. which is not what peoples are doing when they install the packages. It should be possible to define the autopkgtest dependencies. This way we could catch missing dependencies in python- dependencies

Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

2024-07-29 Thread Louis-Philippe Véronneau
Hello, As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during the build process and as an autopkgtest. You can find the MR here: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_reques

python3-gpib installation layout stopped working

2024-07-29 Thread Vladimir Vassilev
Hi, I have been maintaining a package used by users of our gpib adapters and seems the python bindings for the libgpib0 C library stopped working at some point during the bookworm updates. Here is how the rules file currently looks: https://github.com/lightside-instruments/gpib-debian/blob/d