Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Claiming this is RC is a bit over the top though.
Not at all unless having two CPUs becomes part of build-essential definition, something, which, AFAIK, has not happened yet. > If you're only out > to ride the policy train without actually wanting to debug it yourself It's not that I don't want to debug it myself, it's just that I simply can't debug every bug I report, not to mention I would probably not have the required skills to debug this one. But not wanting to debug a bug should not be an excuse to accept the bug being just downgraded and forgotten. > then I'll be forced to simply disable the testsuite. Please do so (but only the test which fails) because otherwise it will be me who will be forced to appeal to the technical committee. As a last test, I've built this package 100 times today on a lot of *different* autobuilders (all of them having a single CPU). I've put the results here for you to see: https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/rygel/ Summary: It failed 95 times out of 100 times. This is a failure rate of 95% on single CPU machines. Unless having two CPUs has suddenly become part of the build-essential definition, I don't see how can you dispute that this is serious and RC. The fact that you downgraded this to *wishlist* (not important, not normal, not even minor, but wishlist) is really what is over the top here. > In my opinion > the testsuite exists to raise the quality of what we produce and > to *save* us time. Sure, see how much time we have saved discussing about this. A test only saves time when you do something when it fails. If you do nothing when it fails, it serves no purpose and does not improve the quality in any way. Thanks.
