[Piuparts-devel] Pending mass bug filing for broken symlinks detected by piuparts

[Dave Steele]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Holger Levsen <holger at layer-acht.org> wrote:
>> The resulting dependency-failed-testing list, on the other hand... But
>> shouldn't flagging symlinks be part of the purpose of sid-nodoc?
>
> not really, that be sid-picky

I guess I'd be more interested in sid-nodoc-picky then.

> I'd make piuparts on piuparts.d.o fail for broken symlinks to /usr/lib if/once
> debian-devel@ has agreed on the MBF, not before.

The point of this question was to establish what current level of
complaint the Announcement could expect to refer to on p.d.o. So the
answer is 'issue'.

>> Also, there may be a third case - issues I currently label as
>> important. Is that a sub of the second case?
>
> which are those?

I ran the candidate rules I outlined a few messages back - /usr/lib to
serious, doc&man to normal, and the rest to important. See the
spreadsheet for details.

>> >> ... and if they are resolved by the package which is calling for this
>> >> package to be installed, they are no more than 'normal', and so on.
>> >
>> > you mean if the broken symlink is provided by a dependend package? I dont
>> > think thats a bug at all then.
>>
>> No. The target is provided by a reverse dependency, which is the
>> normal installation case.
>
> if the missing symlink is "fixed" by a dependent package I don't think there
> is a bug anywhere. thats what depends are for.

Not "dependent". It's "reverse dependent". When testing a package, how
do you guarantee that a reverse dependent package is going to be
installed? This leads to the strategy of using triggers to add the
symlinks only when the rdep arrives.