=== pitti_ is now known as pitti === e11bits is now known as 16WAACIRK [03:23] Good morning === chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun [05:59] elfy pong, though I guess you've gone [06:32] balloons: didn't miss that by much :p [06:33] I think I'm ok now - was wondering how I got access to package tracker as an admin - I believe that's xubuntu-release - I'm going to be assisting Studio in getting QA going for them so will be wanting to do the same for them as for us [06:36] elfy, ahh yes indeed [06:36] elfy, they'll need a similar team and we can grant access [06:37] a similar QA team? or release team? [06:37] I 'think' they have -release but not sure [06:53] elfy, either or [06:54] balloons: ok cheers :) have a good day [06:54] elfy, you as well.. [06:55] :) === _salem is now known as salem_ [08:42] Good Morning [09:16] good morning DanChapman [09:30] hey balloons how's it going in malta? [09:31] DanChapman, excellent. It's nice to have everyone here and be able to speed up work on things requiring everyone === salem_ is now known as _salem [10:46] pitti: any thoughts on parameterising tests in debian/tests/control? I want to call the same breaks-testbed test twice, but with a different parameter each time. [10:46] pitti: the only way I can think of doing it is with a wrapper for each test. [10:47] rbasak: yes, I think I saw that in some packages; they have a debian/tests/do-test and a "test1" calling "do-test foo", and a "test2" calling "do-test bar" [10:48] pitti: seems a bit ugly, but OK. Is a wishlist item of being able to do that directly from debian/tests/control acceptable? [10:48] I'm not sure what the syntax would be [10:49] rbasak: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741330 vaguely goes into the same direction, but it's not the same [10:49] Debian bug 741330 in autopkgtest "autopkgtest: please add ability to wrap a script/runner/adverb around existing tests" [Wishlist,Open] [10:49] Even if it were one per stanza maybe. [10:49] Tests: foo [10:49] Parameters: a b c [10:49] rbasak: yeah, not sure either; it probably will require a lot of extra syntax which doesn't make the whole thing significantly easier.. [10:49] would run "foo a", "foo b", "foo c" [10:49] Tests: foo bar [10:49] Parameters: a b [10:49] could run "foo a", "bar a", "foo b", "bar b" [10:50] rbasak: then the next person will want this to have shell syntax, pass multiple arguments, pass outputs of other commands, etc. :0 [10:50] so, I'm certainly not avert to the idea, I just wonder if it will make things significantly easier and clearer [10:50] autopkgsh :) [10:51] rbasak: the above could just as well be read as "invoke foo with arguments "a b" [10:51] "Why doesn't /etc/shells include autopkgsh? I want to use it as my login shell." [10:52] pitti: OK, then multiple Parameters: lines for each parameterisation [10:52] Anyway, yes, I agree it could get complicated. [10:52] rbasak: so Parameters-foo: a b [10:52] Parameters-bar: c d [10:53] TBH I don't find it clearer than a shell script that just does what it wants, and it has a lot more flexibility [10:53] debian/tests/foo [10:53] #!/bin/sh [10:53] It just means that I have to clutter the directory with a ton of one-line wrappers [10:53] do-test `dpkg --print-architecture` bar $ADTTMP/xx [10:53] I'd like to at least put those one liners into the control file somehow [10:53] rbasak: yeah, I think that's actually a better suggestion [10:54] rbasak: i. e. provide a syntax which puts the shell command to call directly into debian/tests/control [10:54] That would certainly be significantly better. [10:54] Tests: "debian/tests/do-test foo" [10:54] Right [10:55] and it's simple enough to be told apart [10:56] rbasak: now we can get into a long and deep argument about whether ".." or (..) or `..` quoting is better and clearer :) [10:56] :) [10:57] http://xkcd.com/1172/ [10:57] * pitti votes for ⋑..⋐ which is very simiple to type, right? [10:57] "My test had a " character in it and your new feature broke it" [10:59] rbasak: well, the definition thankfully excludes that already [10:59] Test names are separated by whitespace and should contain only [10:59] characters which are legal in package names. It is permitted, but [10:59] not encouraged, to use upper-case characters as well. [10:59] a lawyer would certainly read it as "anything goes", but we can turn this into "must only contain ... plus (discouraged) upper-case letters" [11:00] RFC2119 section 3 :) [11:01] oh right, RFCs how to write RFCs === _salem is now known as salem_ === om26er_ is now known as om26er === zequence_ is now known as zequence [14:48] rpadovani: I'm sorry, we better wait for tomorrow because my branches on reminders have not landed. [14:48] I'll try to push them before EOD today. === bdmurray_ is now known as bdmurray [15:37] * cgoldberg lolz at "spacebar heating" === roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr === roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr [16:56] are their not daily images of trusty? [16:57] not anymore [16:58] trusty is released [17:00] gQuigs: at the most you could get the source images containing the source code used to build Ubuntu [17:00] elfy: we still do daily images for precise: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/precise/ [17:00] gQuigs: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/source/pending/source/ [17:00] how else will we test the point releases? [17:00] gQuigs: good point [17:01] * elfy is in non lts mode already :) [17:02] balloons: what are the plans for Trusty dailies? === roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk === salem_ is now known as _salem === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr === _salem is now known as salem_ === salem_ is now known as _salem