On 1/8/19 3:20 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:38:47PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: >> ... >> I see you have downgraded this from serious, but Release Policy says >> packages must build without failure. Could you please tell me >> in which sense this: >> >> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/watcher.html >> >> is not a failure?
I never contested that it fails in reproducible-builds.org, I wrote it builds for me on my environment which isn't tweaked like the one from reproducible-builds.org. Also, I would appreciate if you do not play BTS-ping-pong. Since I haven't reproduced the build failure locally, I'm declaring that it doesn't build *in certain environment*, which isn't a general FTBFS. Therefore, I'm considering this not an RC bug. Ultimately, this is up to me to decide, and if you want to override, then you must go to a higher authority (like the tech ctte or the release team). Also, the severity that I'm setting has nothing to do with my will to fix it, so there's no reason to get mad at it. > This error in reproducible looks pretty different (it is also not a hang) > from what you reported. Very much! > In any case it would be good if the package would be uploaded source-only, > since this would have made it easy to see whether it also fails on the > buildds. Has the issue that the package has to go through NEW again if it fails been fixed? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
