On 05.07.2026 13:44:35 +0300 you wrote: > Test are optional but recommended, and you are right, they can be > considered as trivial. > Would it be possible to do more without downloading data or adding DFSG > compliant data ? > Do you have some suggestion for a better test ?
Upstream testsuite is usually a good starting point for autopkgtests which should run against the installed package. RNNoise unfortunately does not have tests with reasonable code coverage. It is another labor-intensive task to write non-superficial tests covering each aspect of the library, and it is unrelated to the packaging task. So, we does not have a better option here. That does not mean that "build-against-librnnoise" is a bad test. It may still catch simple packaging issues. But it should be marked as superficial according to the specification [1]. It does not provide significant coverage and can pass even if the library is not functional. Worth noting is that if a package does not have autopkgtests or all tests are superficial, then Britney does not give a discount for migrating packages to testing, and the Release Team will demand unblock requests when the Hard Freeze begins. [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
