On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:28:31PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Steve,
> thanks a lot for this bug report. > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 04:18:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > [...] > > > > (https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-disco/disco/armhf/p/parsinsert/20190206_231724_739fb@/log.gz) > > Investigation suggests this is a regression caused by toolchain changes that > > have resulted in a broken armhf binary build in 1.04-4: there are clearly no > > changes to the testsuite between -3 and -4, the -3 binary still passes the > > testsuite with current libraries, and a no-change rebuild of -3 fails the > > same way. > I need to admit that from a parsinerst maintainers point of view I have > no idea what to do. > > Since Debian does not run autopkgtests on !amd64, I would strongly recommend > > running these tests at build time as well, to avoid shipping broken binaries > > on other architectures. > So your suggestion is that for future uploads we should run the test > written in Debian as autopkgtest as a test for the upstream code. Yes, this would catch the problem earlier and fail to build the package on architectures where it is broken. Then you could request the old binaries be removed from the archive. > > Note that these tests also fail on arm64, i386, and ppc64el in Ubuntu, > > suggestings the packages are also broken there, but none of these are > > regressions. > Thanks a lot for these hints My pleasure! Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature