El 28/1/23 a las 20:44, Sebastian Ramacher escribió:
On 2023-01-28 15:03:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
...
* Those bugs are RC by definition and have been for a long time.
...
Please provide a pointer where a release team member has said so
explicitly in recent years.
In my experience they are usually saying that FTBFS that do not happen
on the buildds of release architectures are usually not RC.
Indeed. We require that packages are buildable on the buildds. If they
don't and they built before, they are RC buggy. For all other FTBFS
bugs, please use severity important at most.
So: What am I supposed to do when some maintainer rejects that this is a bug
at all and closes the bug? (See #1027364 for an example).
I believe Adam Borowski just does not understand the current build essential
definition. Could somebody please explain it to him? I tried and failed.
Also: What I am supposed to do when some maintainer marks the bugs as
"unreproducible"?
I think that's completely missing the point on what's the meaning of
unreproducible.
Thanks.
