Hi All, If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial". Ref: https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
Examples of tests which are not significant includes (its not a complete list):
1) Executing the binary to check version
Test-Command: foo -v
Test-Command: foo -V
Test-Command: foo --version
2) Executing the binary to check help (foo -h)
Test-Command: foo -h
Test-Command: foo --help
3) checking for files installed with 'ls'.
Test-Command: ls -l /usr/lib/*/foo.so
4) A Python or Perl library runs import foo or require Foo; but does
not attempt to use the library beyond that.
Test-Command: python3 -c "import foo"
I intend to file them with "severity: serious" as packages with
non-trivial autopkgtests enjoy a reduced age for migration from
unstable to testing and they are also allowed to migrate in a later
stage of the freeze than other packages. Ref:
https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html
And, rc_policy confirms "These tests must test at least one of its own
installed binary packages in some way, or must be marked as
superficial". Ref: https://release.debian.org/bullseye/rc_policy.txt
Also, Paul has confirmed that if its fixed in git but not uploaded
then the severity can be reduced while marking the bug as pending.
Ref: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/09/msg00236.html
Attached is the dd-list.
--
Regards
Sudip
dd-list
Description: Binary data
