Path: csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Scott Kitterman Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 04:20:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Jul 30 02:10:23 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, CR_SYSTEM8=3, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_SCAM1=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22166 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/63425DF6-E03F-4F58-9983-96ACAE3B7FE8@kitterman.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 60 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:09:30 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <63425DF6-E03F-4F58-9983-96ACAE3B7FE8@kitterman.com> X-Original-References: <02D3B06F-D4BC-48BE-A0D4-191C6FFBBFD8@kitterman.com> <653ea6ec-ccd1-4f68-9f77-125983b1326e@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16128 On July 30, 2024 12:49:50 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe V=C3=A9ronneau" wrote: >On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe V=C3=A9ronneau" wrote: >>> Hello, >>>=20 >>> As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this chan= ge to the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during= the build process and as an autopkgtest=2E >>>=20 >>> You can find the MR here: >>>=20 >>> https://salsa=2Edebian=2Eorg/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_= requests/24 >>>=20 >>> People present at the BoF seemed to think this was a good idea=2E If y= ou don't please reply to this message and make yourself heard :) >>=20 >> I understand the theory and why it's a good idea to run the test suite= =2E I don't think it ought to be a hard requirement=2E I have several pac= kages where there's a test suite, but I don't run it: >>=20 >> 1=2E The largest set is packages that need test only dependencies whic= h are not packaged=2E When I am packaging something new which has a test s= uite, then I generally package any needed test depends=2E If those test dep= ends also need test depends packaged, I generally stop and don't enable tes= ts for things that are only in the archives to support tests=2E Noseofyeti= is an example of this=2E > >That sounds like a valid technical reason not to run the tests to me :) > >> 2=2E There's at least one case where Debian has customizations that ca= use the test suite to fail, but the failures don't seem to cause any real p= roblems=2E If anyone wants to make it so the weasyprint test suite works o= n Debian, please knock yourself out=2E > >Again, as long as you document that, I don't think it would go against th= e proposed policy change=2E > >> 3=2E I also maintain multiple packages which require network access to= run their test suite, so they can't run tests during build, only autopkgte= sts=2E > >Same=2E > Except for #3, I don't get that from the wording in the MR=2E I don't thi= nk not worth the trouble is a technical reason=2E I think the real rule th= at's being proposed is that packages must run the test suit or document why= not=2E I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think that's what it= actually says now=2E I think if you were to change must to should and str= ike the word technical before reason, it would accomplish the same thing an= d be clearer=2E I could support that=2E Scott K