Bug#907829: p4est: FTBFS on single CPU machines

[Santiago Vila]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 04:32:17PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 03:10:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >...
> > In my opinion, you are so much fixated on the idea that "does not fail
> > on the buildds" is the "same" as "the bug is not RC" that you would
> > end up applying such (wrong) rule
> >...
> > AFAIK you are not a release manager. What authority do you have to
> > decide that this bug is not RC, or not serious?
> >...
> 
> In my experience the release team treats "does not fail on buildds of 
> release architectures" as "the bug is not RC".

Well, probably because the buildds are usually considered as
"well-configured autobuilders", and a package which FTBFS only in the
reporter's machine and not in the buildds has a probability > 0
of being caused by a misconfigured autobuilder.

But surely that's not an excuse good enough to deprecate Debian on
single-core systems, which is what you apparently are trying to do
here.

As far as following blindly the rule you say results in something as
grave and deep as deprecating Debian on single-core systems, I can't
accept following a rule just because "that's what we have always done".
 
> Feel free to ask the release team for a definite statement on that
> if you think I am misunderstanding the position of the release team.

So what are we really discussing about, severity or RC-ness?

They are related but they are not exactly the same.

Is it your claim in this bug that it should not be serious, or you
agree that it's serious and you only claim that it should not be RC?

I ask because some time ago I was going to report FTBFS bugs on
unbuildable packages (because of unmet build-depends) and you told me
that it was too early in the release cycle of buster for that.

Thanks.