On domenica 6 novembre 2022 09:15:40 CET Michał Górny wrote: > On top of that, it seems that most of it still relies on proprietary > software and we have no clue how *exactly* it works, and it's really, > really hard to get a straight answer.
I'm speaking for myself. I still use getatoms.py to fetch 'doable' stablereqs (it is on my todo to switch to nattka). And I have a script the *simply* does emerge over the list of the packages. There is nothing obscure in it. > So, my questions are: > > 1. Is "runtime testing required" field being respected? Obviously not > every package can be (sufficiently) tested via FEATURES=test, so we've > added that fields. However, if arch testers just ignore it and push > things stable based on pure build testing... sam already provided the right answer. In addition, when we introduced runtime_testing and package_list fields we requested support in pybugz: https://github.com/williamh/pybugz/issues/105[1] There is no trace (into the github ticket) about runtime testing field because I discussed/ requested over irc. > 2. How are kernels being tested? Given the speed with which new gentoo- > sources stablereqs are handled, I really feel like "arch testing" there > means "checking if sources install", and have little to do with working > kernels. For amd64, I boot into the new kernel to verify that at least it boots. For other 'exotic' arches, since there is a lack of hardware, the rule was to verify that at least it builds (install if we want to use the right word). If you think that build only is not appropriate, I can skip kernel stablereqs. > 3. How does the automation handle packages that aren't trivially > installable? I recall that in the past stablereqs were stalled for > months without a single comment because automation couldn't figure out > how to proceed, and nobody bothered reporting a problem. I skip them from automation and from time to time I handle it manually. Agostino -------- [1] https://github.com/williamh/pybugz/issues/105
