[18:45] <hjd> Hi all. It looks like autopkg tests aren't run by the PPA builders (https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/246354). Is this still the case, and is there any plans to change it in the future?
[18:48] <dobey> indeed it is still the case and i don't think there are any concrete plans to change that
[18:56] <hjd> hm, ok :/ That does explain why I couldn't get it to run.
[18:59] <hjd> Ok, so we have a program with a small testsuite which basically runs the programs (which requires X btw), loads some data, runs for a while and assert on the behaviour/output. Any suggestions on how we could run with our daily builds in a PPA, if at all? I looked some into autopkg test now which seemed to be the correct/preferred way to run tests when building a package but that turned out to not work.
[19:00] <dobey> i would suggest not running anythign beyond standard unit tests during build of the package in a PPA
[19:02] <dobey> if you need to run complex integration tests like that, autopkgtest would be the right way to do it. you could run them locally under qemu or such either after the packages build in the PPA, or prior to being uploaded
[19:15] <hjd> I see.
[19:15] <hjd> dobey: Thanks for answering my questions :)
[19:47] <mapreri> hjd: or you can set up some sort of CI on your own (a simple jenkins setup is not that hard), but you'd need hardware.
[19:53] <shadeslayer> hjd: I was told that autopkgtests were coming to PPA's (selectively probably), but no timeline was provided
[20:50] <igalic> so i just asked the author of tarsnap if its okay to publish binaries of his software, and he said its fine: https://mobile.twitter.com/cperciva/status/568146119730933760 - the only q left: is it fine w/ launchpad?
[20:52] <BarnabasDK> igalic, as I remember it you are prompted to choose your license when creating a new launchpad project
[20:53] <BarnabasDK> the license of the software you mention must be compatible I guess
[20:53] <igalic> *nod*
[21:04] <dobey> what is tarsnap
[21:04] <dobey> tarsnap is open source
[21:05] <dobey> isn't it?
[21:07] <dobey> the license explicitly allows redistribution of unmodified source in source or binary form
[21:07] <dobey> weird
[21:07] <dobey> an odd license, but it's explicit
[21:12] <cjwatson> It's not DFSG-free, but the no-derivatives rule is probably not any worse than e.g. CC BY-NC-ND which is explicitly permitted
[21:13] <cjwatson> Just make sure that the licence permits the addition of packaging rules, which could be considered a modification in some ways
[21:15] <cjwatson> (I haven't read the licence text)
[21:41] <dobey> cjwatson: license is basically "you can redistribute this in source or binary form, without modification"
[21:42] <dobey> and a bunch of all-caps about no warranty
[21:44] <dobey> cjwatson: i don't think the DFSG-free requirement is there for PPAs. only for project registration without buying the commercial support, in LP. iirc, PPA rule is "must be allowed to redistribute"
[21:44] <dobey> no?
[21:44] <cjwatson> https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse has the details
[21:45] <cjwatson> DFSG-compliant makes it easy, but as I said above, it also lists CC BY-NC-ND
[21:45] <cjwatson> so as long as the modifications inherent in packaging don't violate the licence, it's probably fine
[21:46] <dobey> anyway, it seems fine to make some packaging for it, assuming no modification is required to the source itself
[21:48] <dobey> oh, almost thought the 'restricted' policy covered it, but i see that requires explicit permission to modify code (even if only via patches)