(sorry for letting this undealt with for some weeks..)

On Mittwoch, 29. April 2015, Holger Levsen wrote:
> true, but I still think we shouldn't mark known false ftbfs as ftbfs...
> but:
> we know how to exclude these false results (see the ftbfs pages on rb.d.n)
> so we should only flag those real ftbfs in the json output. which is just
> a matter of doing it...

I finally got around to implement this and reproducible.json now doesnt 
include these FTBFS issues:

filtered_issues = ('timestamps_from_cpp_macros' , 'ftbfs_werror_equals', 
'bad_handling_of_extra_warnings', 'ftbfs_pbuilder_malformed_dsc', 
'ftbfs_in_jenkins_setup', 'ftbfs_build_depends_not_available_on_amd64' )

These issues are linked and explained from 
https://reproducible.debian.net/index_issues.html if you are curious.

Thus I will close this bug now, as it might be helpful to indicate FTBFS 
issues on tracker.d.o. (That, I've just looked at three FTBFS issues and there 
was no hint about those issues - did you silently change this without closing 
this bug? Cause now that our .json is meaningful in regards to FTBFS issues, 
it would be nice to indicate those.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to