Bug#1111307: sensible-utils: please drop shellcheck autopkgtest

[Samuel Henrique]

Source: sensible-utils
Version: 0.0.25
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ci at lists.debian.org, shellcheck at packages.debian.org
Tags: sid trixie
User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
Usertags: needs-update
Control: affects -1 src:shellcheck

Dear maintainer(s),

With a recent upload of shellcheck the autopkgtest of sensible-utils
fails in testing when that autopkgtest is run with the binary packages
of shellcheck from unstable. It passes when run with only packages from
testing.

I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report.

Currently this regression is blocking the migration of shellcheck to
testing [1]. Of course, shellcheck shouldn't just break your autopkgtest
(or even worse, your package), but in this case shellcheck just evolved.
Static analysis tools are intended to run on source code, while
autopkgtest is intended to run against installed packages, where source
code is in principle not relevant; we want to know whether the binary
packages, as provided in the Debian archive, work correctly. In our
opinion running this type of tools as integration tests in autopkgtest,
or even as build-time tests is Wrong™, and should not be done. (Having
them running in salsaci or equivalent is of course totally great.)

More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation

[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=shellcheck

https://ci.debian.net/packages/s/sensible-utils/testing/amd64/63282512/

63s autopkgtest [04:50:42]: test command12: [-----------------------
63s
63s In sensible-editor line 25:
63s nano ()
63s ^-- SC2329 (info): This function is never invoked. Check usage (or ignored if invoked indirectly).
63s
63s For more information:
63s https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2329 -- This function is never invoked. C...
63s autopkgtest [04:50:42]: test command12: -----------------------]

I took the liberty to base the body of this email on bugreport
#992798, from Paul Gevers,

Regards,
-- 
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>