Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
Charles Plessy writes ([DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.): reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature could also be a needs-build restriction. Perhaps the specification can be simplified by dropping the Features field ? The distinction is essential. When the spec is extended, we need to be able to specify either (a) old test runners should know that they don't understand the package and refuse to test it (b) old test runners should ignore the new features. ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20456.23215.211650.356...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2012-06-23, 12:33: reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature could also be a needs-build restriction. I noticed this only today: | autopkgtest (2.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium | | * Incompatible test declaration spec changes: | - no-build-needed is now the default; build-needed is a Restriction |that tests which need it have to declare. Apparently http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ is not being kept up-to-date. :| -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120625131556.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
| autopkgtest (2.0.0) unstable; urgency=medium
|
| * Incompatible test declaration spec changes:
| - no-build-needed is now the default; build-needed is a Restriction
|that tests which need it have to declare.
Apparently http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ is not being kept
up-to-date. :|
Indeed, sorry about that. I tried to merge the changes ~30 mins ago, but
I first need to put my hands on the current Git HEAD of autopkgtest (see
autopkgtest-devel list). Will be fixed soon™.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
Stefano Zacchiroli writes (Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.): On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:56PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: Apparently http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ is not being kept up-to-date. :| Indeed, sorry about that. I tried to merge the changes ~30 mins ago, but I first need to put my hands on the current Git HEAD of autopkgtest (see autopkgtest-devel list). Will be fixed soon™. I pushed my head to alioth and to my own git, IIRC. Indeed yes: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=autopkgtest/autopkgtest.git;a=summary http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git/autopkgtest.git/ Perhaps it would be better to have the wiki page point to a suitable gitweb page ? This one perhaps: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=autopkgtest/autopkgtest.git;a=blob_plain;f=doc/README.package-tests;hb=HEAD I think it would be better to maintain this document in a vcs than a wiki. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20456.27264.439878.457...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
Ian Jackson writes (Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.): Stefano Zacchiroli writes (Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.): Indeed, sorry about that. I tried to merge the changes ~30 mins ago, but I first need to put my hands on the current Git HEAD of autopkgtest (see autopkgtest-devel list). Will be fixed soon™. I pushed my head to alioth and to my own git, IIRC. Indeed yes: I should have checked the list Stefano mentioned. It turns out I hadn't pushed 2.2.0, only 2.1.0. But I still think this would be a good idea: Perhaps it would be better to have the wiki page point to a suitable gitweb page ? This one perhaps: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=autopkgtest/autopkgtest.git;a=blob_plain;f=doc/README.package-tests;hb=HEAD I think it would be better to maintain this document in a vcs than a wiki. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20456.28229.591878.488...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
But I still think this would be a good idea:
Perhaps it would be better to have the wiki page point to a suitable
gitweb page ? This one perhaps:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=autopkgtest/autopkgtest.git;a=blob_plain;f=doc/README.package-tests;hb=HEAD
Well, there is a VCS behind the wiki. But it's not good to duplicate
content in two VCSs. Given you're maintaining the spec in the package
VCS, I've just committed a big change to DEP-8 that essentially makes it
point to the URL you suggested above.
Note that there was a change in there (the XS-Testsuite source header)
which is missing from the package version of the spec. I'll post it on
list as a patch for your consideration.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[DEP 8] About the Restrictions and Features field.
Dear Ian, Iustin and Stefano, reading DEP 8's appendix, I wonder about the necessity to keep separate Restrictions and Features fields. For instance, the no-build-needed Feature could also be a needs-build restriction. Perhaps the specification can be simplified by dropping the Features field ? Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623033354.gc15...@falafel.plessy.net
