Bug#710696: severity of 710696 is serious, because it's a FTBFS bug

[Michael Biebl]

Am 29.09.2016 um 21:04 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:26:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 
>> I don't see what we would gain by disabling the failing tests.
>> They are there to catch regressions after all. So this would be a step
>> backwards.
> 
> Fixing RC bugs have multiple benefits :-) We would avoid the package
> from being autoremoved from testing, or having to ask release managers
> for permission to use stretch-ignore.
> 
> Ok, you still don't think this is RC. Well, even in such case, we
> would gain a package that always build. That's everything I ask.
> 
> Currently, for me, it is as if this package had an undeclared
> "build-depends: buildd.debian.org". We should be able to build the
> package in every autobuilder which is sane and not misconfigured.
> 
>> If your main objective is to build the package on your own system, you
>> can omit the test-suite by setting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck (not su
> 
> That's exactly the issue and that's why I consider this to be RC:
> 
> If my autobuilder is not misconfigured, I should not have to
> special-case this package by setting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS at all.
> 
> My main objective was really to check for "dpkg-buildpackage -A",
> but when packages FTBFS for other reasons not related to using -A,
> my secondary objective is ensuring that packages build ok,
> and this, naturally, include the tests, so I can't just skip them.
> 
>> Of course, the better option would be if you can investigate why it
>> fails on your particular setup. This would be very much appreciated.
>> I'm not saying, that there isn't a race somewhere. The point is that
>> disabling is not the answer and it's not necessary.
> 
> Yes, of course, I will try to help you to debug this within my possibilities.
> 
> [ I'm going to provide the backtrace you asked in the other email ]
> 
> But you are making a balance which IMO is a little bit biased. You
> don't see the need to disable the failing tests because you have
> already downgraded the bug!
> 
> Please think about this bug as RC. Your options would be:
> 
> A. Invest time and effort to debug it.
> 
> B. Disable the test, possibly forwarding the bug upstream so that they
> investigate, not you.
> 
> Since we are all volunteers, I can't really ask that you do A.
> 
> Everything I ask is that the package builds ok, and for that B would
> be completely acceptable.
> 
> I hope this clarifies a previous comment I did that apparently you
> didn't like. If you choose B over A for whatever reason, I will never
> say it's wrong, or complain or antyhing like that.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Sigh, you really like to argue instead of actually addressing the issue.

Anyway, to be more constructive, see
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772193

If you have anything substantial to add, please follow up at the
upstream bug report.

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20160929/281b7e0e/attachment.sig>