#1082815 analizo: FTBFS (tests fail) on sid

Package:
src:analizo
Source:
src:analizo
Submitter:
наб
Date:
2024-09-28 14:43:34 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1082815#5
Date:
2024-09-26 18:52:23 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Maintainer,

Caught this in ratt for src:ossp-uuid,
but it fails on a clean sbuild -d unstable analizo.

Interesting bit (I think)?
  ok
  t/author-pod-spell.t ..................................................... skipped: these tests are for testing by the author
  t/author-pod-syntax.t .................................................... skipped: these tests are for testing by the author

  # Failed test 'Then the exit status must be 0'
  # at t/features/metrics_history.feature line 58.
  #   in step at t/features/metrics_history.feature line 58.
  #     not ok
  #     #   Failed test at /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/t/features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.pl line 57.
  #     #          got: 32768
  #     #     expected: 0
  #     ok 3 - Step ran to completion
  #     1..2
  #     # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2.

  # Failed test 'Then the exit status must not be 0'
  # at t/features/metrics/output_file.feature line 14.
  #   in step at t/features/metrics/output_file.feature line 14.
  #     not ok
  #     #   Failed test at /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/t/features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.pl line 62.
  #     #          got: 0
  #     #     expected: anything else
  #     ok 3 - Step ran to completion
  #     1..2
  #     # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2.

  # Failed test 'Then the exit status must not be 0'
  # at t/features/graph/output-file.feature line 20.
  #   in step at t/features/graph/output-file.feature line 20.
  #     not ok
  #     #   Failed test at /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/t/features/step_definitions/analizo_steps.pl line 62.
  #     #          got: 0
  #     #     expected: anything else
  #     ok 3 - Step ran to completion
  #     1..2
  #     # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2.
  # Looks like you failed 3 tests of 1008.
  t/features.t .............................................................
  # Feature mapping modules to filenames

But a full log is attached if I missed it.

Best,
#1082815#10
Date:
2024-09-26 22:53:08 UTC
From:
To:
Thanks for your bug report.

Unfortunately I can't reproduce it, the package still builds fine for
me in my sid cowbuilder chroot.

Can you provide any further hints?

Cheers,
gregor
#1082815#15
Date:
2024-09-26 22:53:08 UTC
From:
To:
Thanks for your bug report.

Unfortunately I can't reproduce it, the package still builds fine for
me in my sid cowbuilder chroot.

Can you provide any further hints?

Cheers,
gregor
#1082815#20
Date:
2024-09-27 01:02:58 UTC
From:
To:
severity 1082815 important
thanks

Hi.

Based on this line from your build log, you seem to be building the package using the "root" user:

LOGNAME=root

and in fact I can confirm that the package did not build for me when I tried to build it with sbuild as root.

But nobody is supposed to do that. Packages are supposed to be built
using a regular (non-root) user.

I'm just downgrading so that the bug is not RC, but I leave the details to the
analizo maintainers (i.e. maybe retitle, maybe wishlist, or maybe not a bug at all).

Thanks.
#1082815#27
Date:
2024-09-27 01:44:03 UTC
From:
To:
Hi!
yes
and if you're root has no bearing on this, so it must work here.

(but ftr I don't disagree with the downgrade ‒ this is implied twice,
 and this argument is hard to maintain for B-D: dpkg-build-api (= 1)
 packages (which this is not! but); I just left the reportbug defaults)

Best,