[Pkg-javascript-devel] boost1.62/1.62.0+dfsg-5.1 appears to break node-mapnik/3.7.2+dfsg-1 autopkgtest in testing

[Paul Gevers]

[Resend as boost1.62 at packages.debian.org bounces and this is an NMU]

(I have retriggered these tests as they had installability issues)

Paul

On 21-05-18 20:07, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
> 
> [This e-mail is automatically sent. V3.2 (20180518)]
> 
> tl;dr: boost1.62/1.62.0+dfsg-5.1 appears to break node-mapnik/3.7.2+dfsg-1 autopkgtest in testing
> see: https://ci.debian.net/packages/n/node-mapnik/testing/amd64/
> and https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=boost1.62
> 
> As recently announced [1] Debian is now running autopkgtests in testing
> to check if the migration of a new source package causes regressions. It
> does this with the binary packages of the new version of the source
> package from unstable.
> 
> With a recent upload of boost1.62 the autopkgtest of node-mapnik
> started to fail in testing [2]. This is currently delaying the migration
> of boost1.62 version 1.62.0+dfsg-5.1 [3].
> 
> This e-mail is meant to trigger prompt direct communication between the
> maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what
> changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. Please
> therefore get in touch with each other with your ideas about what the
> causes of the problem might be, proposed patches, etc. A regression in a
> reverse dependency can be due to one of the following reasons (of course
> not complete):
> * new bug in the candidate package (fix the package)
> * bug in the test case that only gets triggered due to the update (fix
>   the reverse dependency, but see below)
> * out-of-date reference date in the test case that captures a former bug
>   in the candidate package (fix the reverse dependency, but see below)
> * deprecation of functionality that is used in the reverse dependency
>   and/or its test case (discussion needed)
> * regression due to other packages from unstable that are installed to 
>   fulfill (versioned) Depends (contact maintainers of those).
> Triaging tips are being collected on the Debian Wiki [4].
> 
> Unfortunately sometimes a regression is only intermittent. Ideally this
> should be fixed, but it may be OK to just have the autopkgtest retried
> (a link is available in the excuses [3]).
> 
> There are cases where it is required to have multiple packages migrate
> together to have the test cases pass, e.g. when there was a bug in a
> regressing test case of a reverse dependency and that got fixed. In that
> case the test cases need to be triggered with both packages from
> unstable (reply to this e-mail and/or contact the ci-team [5]) or just
> wait until the aging time is over (if the fixed reverse dependency
> migrates before that time, the failed test can be retriggered [3]).
> 
> Of course no system is perfect. In case a framework issue is suspected,
> don't hesitate to raise the issue via BTS or to the ci-team [5] (reply to
> me is also fine for initial cross-check).
> 
> To avoid stepping on peoples toes, this e-mail does not automatically
> generate a bug in the BTS, but it is highly recommended to forward this
> e-mail there (psuedo-header boilerplate below [6,7]) in case it is
> clear which package should solve this regression.
> 
> It can be appropriate to file an RC bug against the depended-on package,
> if the regression amounts to an RC bug in the depending package, and to
> keep it open while the matter is investigated. That will prevent
> migration of an RC regression.
> 
> If the maintainers of the depending package don't have available effort
> to fix a problem, it is appropriate for the maintainers of the
> depended-on package to consider an NMU of the depending package. Any
> such an NMU should take place in accordance with the normal NMU rules.
> 
> Neither of the above steps should be seen as hostile; they are part of
> trying to work together to keep Debian in tip-top shape.
> 
> If you find that you are not able to agree between you about the right
> next steps, bug severities, etc., please try to find a neutral third
> party to help you mediate and/or provide a third opinion. Failing that
> your best bet is probably to post to debian-devel.
> 
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/05/msg00001.html
> [2] https://ci.debian.net/packages/n/node-mapnik/testing/amd64/
> [3] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=boost1.62
> [4] https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/TriagingTips
> [5] #debci on oftc or debian-ci at lists.debian.org
> [6] boost1.62 has an issue
> ============
> Source: boost1.62
> Version: 1.62.0+dfsg-5.1
> Severity: normal or higher
> Control: affects -1 src:node-mapnik
> User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
> Usertags: breaks
> ============
> [7] node-mapnik has an issue
> ============
> Source: node-mapnik
> Version: 3.7.2+dfsg-1
> Severity: normal or higher
> Control: affects -1 src:boost1.62
> User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
> Usertags: needs-update
> ============
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20180521/e0500618/attachment.sig>