[elbrus at debian.org: bits from the ci.debian.net maintainers]

Iain Lane laney at debian.org
Fri Oct 30 11:01:26 UTC 2020

Ubuntu developers might be interested in this, which I just merged to 
the branch of autopkgtest we're using on autopkgtest.ubuntu.com[0]:

----- Forwarded message from Paul Gevers <elbrus at debian.org> -----

> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:52:58 +0100
> From: Paul Gevers <elbrus at debian.org>
> To: Debian Devel Announce <debian-devel-announce at lists.debian.org>
> Subject: bits from the ci.debian.net maintainers
> List-Id: <debian-devel-announce.lists.debian.org>
> Mail-Followup-To: debian-devel at lists.debian.org
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
> Dear all,
> With the recent upload of autopkgtest 5.15, which is available in
> unstable and testing, maintainers have the ability to declare on which
> architecture(s) their autopkgtests are supposed to be run [1]. This
> can be done in either explicitly listing supported architectures, or
> by explicitly listing unsupported architectures. The normal
> dpkg-architecture wildcards apply. As an example, src:lxc already made
> the change in commit [2].
> The reason why this feature has been added is that the testing
> migration software that is run by the Release Team is now taking test
> results into account from four architectures: amd64, arm64, armhf and
> i386. And more architectures to be added soon hopefully.
> Of course it's best that your autopkgtest is supported on all
> architectures, but if that isn't feasible, too much work, or doesn't
> work e.g. because of non-installability of test dependencies [3],
> consider using this new field.
> Paul Gevers
> Member of the debian-ci team
> Member of the Release Team
> [1]
> https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst#L178-187
> [2]
> https://salsa.debian.org/lxc-team/lxc/-/commit/18904a14a91cf3bd705d4a9c62cc64e8dd464df3
> [3] We think it's better to use this new field instead of the
> skip-not-installable restriction if the problem is architecture
> specific, as skip-not-installable will hide genuine problems with
> installability.  Regular package dependencies are already checked by
> the migration software so shouldn't be an issue.

----- End forwarded message -----


Iain Lane                                  [ iain at orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer                                   [ laney at debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney at ubuntu.com ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20201030/3ebb9713/attachment.sig>

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list