On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 18:25 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> could you explain why you think this is of severity "serious"? In my
> opinion, FTBFS should be "important" as long as there is at least one
> useful architecture.
Your opinion is not consistent with RC bug policy. See
https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt , specifically section
A regression in building on a release architecture is RC. If the package
has never built on a particular architecture, or the failure occurs on a
non-release architecture, the issue is conventionally considered to be
of important severity.
> IMO it is up to the maintainer's decision to fix the FTBFS here, or to
> remove the failing archs from Debian to let the package pass to testing.
It is. Until the packages are removed, however, the fact that they fail
to build remains a release-critical issue.
> So, if you not oppose to, I would lower the severity and make it non-RC.
Even if Peter doesn't, I oppose it. The bug *is* RC.