On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:36:07AM -0700, Andrew Ayer wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:08:13 +0200
> Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
> > Ahhh, that's interesting.  My situation is that I just wanted to find
> > out why some of our team packages are about to be removed.  I do not
> > expect myself to be very helpful in fixing the problem.  The only
> > thing I would like to know is why this bug is qualified as serious if
> > there is no build error when using the available tools but fails only
> > with a patched tool.  IMHO this does qualify as important as
> > maximum.  Please do not understand me wrong: Any bug should be fixed
> > but I see no point in kicking a chain of packages out uf testing only
> > because a package using a patched debhelper fails to build.
> Hi Andreas,
> I agree the severity was set too high considering it only affected
> builds with a patched debhelper.  I had no idea strip-nondeterminism
> had accumulated so many reverse dependencies, or I would have been more
> proactive about making sure packages outside of the reproducible
> builds effort weren't bothered with an auto-removal notice.

That's WOW.

i was aware some packages started build-depending on it, but nothing like this.
Also, broken (and also missing, fwiw) build-dep does not causes removal from
testing [1], so that's sound weird+wrong.

Can you tell me of such package so i can get a look at what's going on more

[1] Actually I find this behaviour wrong and I have on my todo to propose a
patch for Britney to consider also them.

                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540         .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                                 : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                     `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia     `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to