Dear maintainer(s),

I looked at the results of the autopkgtest of your package. I noticed
that it regularly fails on riscv64. I noticed bugs 783653 and 709306 and
this might be related. For riscv64 we have multiple hosts with different
hardware, so this might be hardware (and potentially kernel) related.
Message 783653#54 suggested there is a work-around, maybe that should be
the default?

Because the unstable-to-testing migration software now blocks on
regressions in testing, flaky tests, i.e. tests that flip between
passing and failing without changes to the list of installed packages,
are causing people unrelated to your package to spend time on these
tests.

Don't hesitate to reach out if you need help and some more information
from our infrastructure.

Paul

https://ci.debian.net/packages/p/pymol/testing/riscv64/70666549/
476s Run 'pymol -c
/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.bv1wwtxj/downtmp/build.28k/src/examples/devel/mutate02.py'...
500s Run 'pymol -c
/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.bv1wwtxj/downtmp/build.28k/src/examples/devel/my_ext_gui.py'...
502s Run 'pymol -c
/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.bv1wwtxj/downtmp/build.28k/src/examples/devel/particle01.py'...
507s Run 'pymol -c
/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.bv1wwtxj/downtmp/build.28k/src/examples/devel/particle02.py'...
511s Segmentation fault
512s autopkgtest [19:22:47]: test command1: -----------------------]

Hi Steffen

I'm assuming Paul did not receive a copy of your email, so CC-ing him now.

riscv64 is a release architecture, and we have a porterbox available
so I believe severity: serious is correct.

We also have a team of porters at debian-riscv@lists.debian.org who
are very eager to help, if only someone would ask.

Regards
Graham

Hi,


Indeed I did not (the bts doesn't forward bugs to submitters by default;
I normally don't subscribe to bugs I file). I agree with the statements
from Graham.

Paul