Re: Bug#879619: Autopkgtest for ncbi-tools6

Liubov Chuprikova writes: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 17:30 Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > >> >> That said, you did catch a bug in taxblast; I'll push a fix this >> evening. (The binary will still require a network connection, just >> actually be able to use it

Re: Bug#879619: Autopkgtest for ncbi-tools6

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 17:30 Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > > That said, you did catch a bug in taxblast; I'll push a fix this > evening. (The binary will still require a network connection, just > actually be able to use it now). > Ok, thank you! With regards, Liubov

Re: Bug#879619: Autopkgtest for ncbi-tools6

Liubov Chuprikova writes: > Ops, it's escaped my attention somehow that tests are usually run on a > disconnected machine. I thought the opposite way.. Then I also need to > comment tests for *insdseqget* and *idfetch*.. Thank you for the > clarification! That said, you

Re: Bug#879619: Autopkgtest for ncbi-tools6

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 16:40 Andreas Tille wrote: > > Just from reading the shell script it looks fine. Requiring bash is > also OK. > Ok, thanks! SSL I'm getting suspicious: The test suite needs to be run in a machine > that is disconnected from the internet (similarly

Re: Fixed all upstream metadata in Debian Med (Was: RRID update on salsa on packages starting with A+B)

This was still open on my desk - sorry for the late reply. On 4/10/18 6:09 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:25:52PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: An immediate concern of mine is that we have no visibility of our task page with Google. A strategic mistake apparently was to

Re: Bug#879619: Autopkgtest for ncbi-tools6

Hi Liubov, On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:24:12PM +, Liubov Chuprikova wrote: > > > > Great, thanks! I suppose you could check for specific output contents > > (via grep, not necessarily 100% identity), but this otherwise all looks > > good, and is a clear improvement over not having

Re: Bug#879619: Autopkgtest for ncbi-tools6

Hi Aaron, On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 23:30 Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Liubov Chuprikova writes: > > > the same directory. What do you think about the whole test at this stage? > > Great, thanks! I suppose you could check for specific output contents > (via