Hi, please do not CC me in further replies. Many thanks. -lamby
On Wed, 18 May 2016, at 07:50 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:12:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> > Am 18.05.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> > > Just take a look at the countless FTBFS bugs filed by r
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:12:52PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 18.05.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> > Just take a look at the countless FTBFS bugs filed by reproducible
> > builds people. They are almost always serious, but many of them fail
> > to meet the condition that the FTBFS h
Am 18.05.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> To put it simply: There are countless circumstances under which programs
>> can FTBFS. There is a standard way to determine when a FTBFS is release
>> critical and when
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> [...]
>
> To put it simply: There are countless circumstances under which programs
> can FTBFS. There is a standard way to determine when a FTBFS is release
> critical and when it is not. If it builds fine on our buildd network it
Am 18.05.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Mon, 16 May 2016, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> How come I am not surprised about your reaction and this reminds me of
>> the discussion we had about Bullet and the bug you eventually closed.
>
> If you refer to Bug #818148, it was clearly a violat
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Markus Koschany wrote:
> How come I am not surprised about your reaction and this reminds me of
> the discussion we had about Bullet and the bug you eventually closed.
If you refer to Bug #818148, it was clearly a violation of Policy 4.6,
which says that in case of errors the
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Markus Koschany wrote:
> [...] Try to respect your fellow maintainers for once or ask
> yourself if probably you are the one who has come to the wrong
> conclusion. Not every bug is release critical.
This is not a conclusion of mine.
FTBFS bugs are of serious severity, they
Control: severity -1 normal
How come I am not surprised about your reaction and this reminds me of
the discussion we had about Bullet and the bug you eventually closed.
Again, if you disagree with maintainer decisions, then just don't raise
the severity again. Try to respect your fellow maintainer
tags 824011 + patch
thanks
Patch attached.
In either case, I recommend that you still try to reproduce the bug to
fully understand it. Here is the way to reproduce it:
* Create a stretch chroot (with debootstrap).
* Install debhelper in the chroot. This will automatically install
"automake" a
severity 824011 serious
thanks
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 02:17:23AM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I have just rebuilt warzone2100 in a clean sid cowbuilder chroot.
Well, if that's all you did, then I would say that you didn't
understand the nature of the problem.
I'll try to explain better belo
Control: severity -1 normal
On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:34:14 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila
wrote:
> Package: warzone2100
> Version: 3.1.1-3
> Severity: serious
>
> Dear maintainer:
>
> This package fails to build from source in stretch:
>
>
Package: warzone2100
Version: 3.1.1-3
Severity: serious
Dear maintainer:
This package fails to build from source in stretch:
-
debian/rules build
dh build --parallel --with autoreconf
dh_testdir
dh_update_autotools_config
12 matches
Mail list logo
