On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:16:30PM +0100, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> On 2015-11-26 18:10, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:14:26PM +0100, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> >>Have you verified that it affects unstable too? Because my unstable
> >>builds succeed just fine.
> >
> >It probably builds in unstable, yes, but what I'm reporting here is
> >not that it fails to build in a "generic sense". I'm reporting that it
> >fails to build in testing.
> >
> >So, before tagging this as "unreproducible", could you please try to
> >build it on testing, which is what this report is about?
> I don't really see how that's useful,

Well, there is GPL compliance, the Social Contract, you know.

It would be quite useless that we provide a free operating system
complete with source code if users are not able to build packages
from the source we provide.

At the very minimum, building it on testing would allow you to check
if the unreproducible tag does really apply here or not.

(I think it does not apply because I have two different build logs
which fail on testing).

> packages in testing don't get rebuilt.

This is not completely true. In some cases release managers perform
binary-only NMUs. The typical case are transitions, where packages
are linked to new versions of libraries without any real source
code change.

But I don't think that's really relevant in this case.

The issue here is a basic principle in Debian: we want everybody to be
able to rebuild packages, regardless of the fact that we do it as well
or not.

> Or do you suggest to uploaded to testing-proposed-uploads
> with a fix for this testing-only issue?

No. If you find a way to modify the source so that the new package
builds ok in both testing and unstable, you would just upload it to
unstable. The fixed package would propagate to testing and then
everything would work in both testing and unstable.

What I suggest is that you investigate about the reasons why this
problem happens.

Restoring the initial severity would also be nice. This is a FTBFS bug
and the consensus is that those bugs are of "serious" severity.

As for the tags, I don't see what "moreinfo" you need. I said
"testing" right from the beginning.


Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to