On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:49:22PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 09:05:19PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Ok, sorry, but then please retitle the bug and drop the FTBFS word. > > I am just a random person going through RC bugs, but that sounds like a > good idea so I'm doing that now.
Thank you. I was going to do exactly the same but have been faster. > > When a package fails to build from source, there are no runtime > > problems at all, because the binary package does not even exist. > > That is only true when the build always fails (see my next email). Indeed. When I wrote that I was still confused about why "FTBFS" was in the subject of this report. Maybe he meant that the package made others packages to FTBFS (?). I don't know. Thanks.
