> > Because it's a bug. This is a matter of principles. We don't close > > bugs just because we are not motivated enough to fix them, we close them > > when they are fixed. > > Technically speaking, there's no issue in Debian itself, just in some > environment which aren't setup in a "normal way", apparently.
We don't really know. You describe your laptop as "normal" and both my autobuilders and reproducible-builds (where there is a build failure in unstable, btw) as "not normal", but without a real understanding of the root cause, this is pure speculation. It could be, for example, that the test suite assumes a certain feature to be present on the build machine which is not mandated by policy (for example a CPU speed greater than "X"). > So yes, > this is a bug, but it doesn't affect Debian directly. It affects my work as QA tester. Look: I'm trying to track all packages which FTBFS randomly: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?dist=unstable;include=subject%3AFTBFS+randomly;submitter=sanvila%40debian.org because I believe that packages should either build all the time or show a clear error message explaining why the build fails. By closing this bug, you are implicitly telling me that I should track all those bugs outside the Debian BTS, in which case I should better stop doing QA on Debian altogether. > IMO, going through > the technical committee for this is a waste of their time: we both agree > there's an issue that's worth fixing. You just don't agree on my way > triaging the bugs of the team, and probably feel disappointed that I > don't wish to spend more time on this. Not really. I'm disappointed that you want to remove this bug from the list of bugs we would like to see fixed. > I do understand the frustration, I'm not really sure you understand the frustration. Please take a look at my list of "FTBFS randomly" bugs above. > Let's make it clear: in no way, I consider there's no problem. (or said > otherwise: thanks for the bug report, I do recognize there's a bug) Then please allow it to be in the BTS with whatever severity you feel comfortable with (including wishlist). > [...] so I can focus on other things which I > evaluate as more important. Nothing will prevent you from focusing on those more important things if we keep the bug open with a lower severity. That's what severities are for. > I feel like > keeping open bugs for years is lying to our users, and doesn't help. I agree. However, if we close a bug without actually fixing it, that would be also a way of lying. > Anyway, to move forward, I did what you suggested, and I have open a bug > upstream: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1850928 Thanks a lot! But I still expect the BTS to be a reflect of the known problems, regardless of our willingness or motivation to fix them. Severities exist to prioritize the bugs. If you think this bug is low priority, set it to "wishlist". "Closed" is not a severity. Thanks.
