Le 14/07/2016 à 15:07, Santiago Vila a écrit :
> What you call "binary upload" is mostly an upload which includes all
> the "Arch: all" binary packages.
> If you were able to provide all the "Arch: any" binary packages, failure
> to build in the official autobuilders would not be serious, then?
At this point this becomes too theoretical, what you describe here is
not what a DD usually do. I prefer to remain on the practical side and
observe than uploading arch indep packages is common, while uploading
all arch any packages is not.
-A failures have no impact because the arch all packages are already
built by the DD. -B failures have a real impact because it renders the
package unavailable on the architectures other than the one used by the
DD. Hence the different severity between -A and -B failures.
So let's remain pragmatic and call "serious" something that is really
serious for our users.
> Or even better: Consider a source package which only builds "Arch: all"
> binary packages. Suppose your package has a missing build-depends but
> it builds ok in your computer because you have installed the
> build-dependency in your chroot. Since you provide all the "Arch: all"
> packages, would it be ok not to consider the FTBFS in an official
> autobuilder as serious?
I agree but that's a different case, this is just a plain old FTBFS.
This issue is about "dpkg-buildpackage" working but not
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.