On Tue, 26 May 2020 12:23:04 +0200 Pierre-Elliott Bécue <[email protected]> wrote: > Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 20:09:30-0300, Antonio Terceiro a écrit : > > what you can do is have two test declarations of the same test in the > > control file: one with isolation-container and another with > > isolation-machine (and maybe skip the one with isolation-container if > > running in a vm) > > Hi Antonio, > > Indeed, I'll think about that. If you're eager to take care of such a > solution, I'd be glad to leave that up to you! :)
I'm certainly in favor of being able to run lxc autopkgtests in more places, such as ci.d.n, even if it's a slightly reduced set compared to what is possible in a VM. I did a quick test this evening, and several of the tests fail due to an apparmor setup error when run with the lxc autopkgtest backend. I haven't investigated, but hopefully it's a simple change to get those passing as expected. Mathias
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
