Am 18.10.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> Sigh, you really like to argue [...]
>
> No, I don't really like to argue.
>
And I don't care anymore. I have better things to do then pointlessly
argue about nonimportant stuff.
If you think it's
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Sigh, you really like to argue [...]
No, I don't really like to argue.
I was trying to be nice by explaining things with detail instead of
moving the discussion to -devel, the technical committee or the
release managers.
If you just "don't like to
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Can you get us a proper backtrace of such a crash. It should be possible
> to only run tests/multipart-test in gdb
I get this:
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library
Am 29.09.2016 um 21:04 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:26:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> I don't see what we would gain by disabling the failing tests.
>> They are there to catch regressions after all. So this would be a step
>> backwards.
>
> Fixing RC bugs have
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:26:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I don't see what we would gain by disabling the failing tests.
> They are there to catch regressions after all. So this would be a step
> backwards.
Fixing RC bugs have multiple benefits :-) We would avoid the package
from being
Am 29.09.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Of course, the better option would be if you can investigate why it
> fails on your particular setup. This would be very much appreciated.
> I'm not saying, that there isn't a race somewhere. The point is that
> disabling is not the answer and it's
Am 29.09.2016 um 12:12 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> So: Can we already disable the tests that fail? Do you want help to
> reproduce this for yourself? Maybe that would unblock this issue.
> I could give you access to a machine in which this fails more than 50%
> of the time. Would you agree to make
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:54:33PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 25.09.2016 um 15:30 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> > I still think downgrading is wrong. It is your interpretation of
> > release policy that packages "must autobuild" only refers to the
> > official autobuilders?
>
>
Am 25.09.2016 um 15:30 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> Thanks for ignoring completely 12 different failed build logs when
> considering whether this "builds from source" or it does not.
>
> Very motivating as well.
>
> I still think downgrading is wrong. It is your interpretation of
> release policy
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 25.09.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Santiago Vila:
>
> They do autobuild, see
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libsoup2.4
They don't, see all the failed build logs I attached:
Thanks for ignoring completely 12 different failed build logs when
considering whether this "builds from source" or it does not.
Very motivating as well.
I still think downgrading is wrong. It is your interpretation of
release policy that packages "must autobuild" only refers to the
official
Am 25.09.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> According to "Packages must autobuild without failure"
> in release policy:
They do autobuild, see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libsoup2.4
> If the maintainer does not have the time or the patience to disable
> the tests that
12 matches
Mail list logo
