Hi, As the person who filed the removal bug (this bug) and prepared the removal MR, I realize I did not communicate the upcoming change well enough. In light of this and after sleeping over it for a few nights I may have something different to propose now.
1. By adding usage of eatmydata in d/t/schroot, I think I managed to make the execution of that test faster. 2. I think we can consider having a "code owner" for a-v-schroot, i.e. someone caring about the virt server bugs. This is the maintenance that would go in src:autopkgtest-virt-extra. 3. Given the feedback we received and lack of good communication, I think it would be better for our users to not drop a-v-schroot in Trixie. 4. Even if we eventually decide to split out a-v-schroot, we should consider alternatives to a whole new source package. Possibilities I can think of: a separate _binary_ package, or a contrib/ directory, similar to what git does. I think the src:autopkgtest-virt-extra split was rushed, and it is probably not the best solution. To conclude, I think it is reasonable for me to propose reverting my MR (https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/merge_requests/410), plus adding documentation on the fact that the a-v-schroot is a not a recommended virt server. I believe this is an overall better solution from Debian and for Debian users. Having listened to all the inputs I got, I believe this is going to be an acceptable solution for everyone.. I will let this sit for a couple of days, and if I get no negative feedback, I'll proceed preparing a new MP. Cheers, Paride
