On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 09:19:16AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 11:35:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 06:46:38AM -0000, Sune Vuorela wrote: > > > On 2023-08-07, Benjamin Drung <bdr...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > while working a whole week on fixing failing C/C++ header compilations > > > > for armhf time_t [1], I noticed a common pattern: The library -dev > > > > packages was missing one or more dependencies on another -dev package. > > > > Over 200 -dev packages are affected. > > > > > > I don't think this is a important problem that some headers might have > > > special conditions for use. I'd rather have our developers spend time > > > fixing other issues than satisfying this script. > > >... > > > > There are many actual bugs it would catch, that are currently only > > caught later manually (sometimes through bug reports from users in > > stable). > > > > There are special cases that might result in false positives. > > > > Numbers for bugs found and false positives should help determine whether > > it should be opt-in or opt-out. > > While providing this for packages to use is a great idea, this will have > to be opt-in. Imposing this on maintainers has a significant technical > and social cost, specially in the case of packages where the defaults > don't work correctly, that I am not willing to pay. >...
Manual opt-in for our > 11k -dev packages is a significant cost that would have to be justified by the people who oppose opt-out. Are the > 200 affected -dev packages > 200 RC bugs and a dozen false positives, or are they > 200 false positives and a dozen RC bugs? cu Adrian
