On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 11:29:08AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 25/09/2025 11:21, Timo Röhling wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[email protected]> [2025-09-25 10:07]: > > > Yesterday when I read Simon's email I was going to suggest the same. > > > Raise the severity now, and wait a bit more for packages to be fixed, > > > as otherwise this may cause issues to ongoing or planned transitions. > > That sounds like a reasonable approach. > > > > > Maybe we can evaluate it again in one month, and hopefully get it > > > uploaded to sid soon. > > I am a bit unhappy about the fuzziness of the "hopefully soon" part, and > > I would prefer something more concrete that the Release Team is > > expecting to happen / where the priorities are. For instance, am I > > correct to infer from Paul's mail that dealing with key packages is more > > important than merely reducing the overall number of open bugs fast? > > Yes, key packages are more important in general, as it's harder to get rid > of those in testing if there's a need to unblock a transition. > > I think we can do it in one month if things look reasonably well, otherwise > in two months as a hard deadline to not delay this indefinitely. Does that > sound reasonable?
This was over 2 months ago, and the number of key packages that FTBFS with CMake 4 is now lower than the number that do still FTBFS with GCC 15. > Cheers, > Emilio cu Adrian
