Am Montag, den 21.09.2020, 17:57 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:30:20PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >
> > May be I misunderstood you - but if you do not run the test at all
> > (as done in some architectures) how will you know whether the test
> > might fail? May be
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:30:20PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> May be I misunderstood you - but if you do not run the test at all
> (as done in some architectures) how will you know whether the test
> might fail? May be I miss your point here and thus I implemented
> my suggestion and we'll
Hi Martin,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 09:26:41AM +, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge the fact that a test runs on amd64 but fails
> > on some other architecture is not only caused by issues in the tool
> > chain. For instance recently I learned that for instance if char is
Hi Andreas,
Am Montag, den 21.09.2020, 09:45 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 05:50:34PM +, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > > I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in general. If
> > > we can be sure that for s390x there is an issue with the
> > > tool
Hi Martin,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 05:50:34PM +, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in general. If
> > we can be sure that for s390x there is an issue with the
> > tool chain I could imagine something like:
> >
> > if build on s390x
> > run_test ||
Am Samstag, den 19.09.2020, 17:09 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 01:15:47PM +, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > > The severity on this bug can be downgraded, however the FTBFS on s390x
> > > remains a release critical bug, since s390x is a release architecture.
Hi Martin,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 01:15:47PM +, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > The severity on this bug can be downgraded, however the FTBFS on s390x
> > remains a release critical bug, since s390x is a release architecture.
> >
> > Either the FTBFS gets fixed, or removal of the s390x binaries
Hi Graham,
Am Samstag, den 19.09.2020, 14:04 +0200 schrieb Graham Inggs:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 13:51, Uecker, Martin
> wrote:
> > Could severity be downgraded?
>
> The severity on this bug can be downgraded, however the FTBFS on s390x
> remains a release critical bug, since s390x is a
Hi Martin
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 13:51, Uecker, Martin
wrote:
> Could severity be downgraded?
The severity on this bug can be downgraded, however the FTBFS on s390x
remains a release critical bug, since s390x is a release architecture.
Either the FTBFS gets fixed, or removal of the s390x
Could severity be downgraded?
(The build on s390x seems to use a newer compiler.
The failure may be a compiler bug, but similar to
the RISC-V bug I can't investigate as I never got
access to porter boxes.)
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:05:16 +0200 Andreas Tille wrote:
> Control: tags -1 normal
>
>
Control: tags -1 normal
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:40:29PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> The thread starts here:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/09/msg00071.html
>
> mostly follow-ups from here on:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/09/msg00219.html
Thanks for the pointers
Hi Andreas,
On 17-09-2020 11:46, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Was there any outcome on your discussion of the severity of those
> bugs (and where did this discussion happened - I can not find anything
> on debian-devel or debian-ci list)?
The thread starts here:
Hi again,
I did not expected to do any more on this issue since the bug was fixed
quickly. Unfortunately the build failed on s390x (see my mail to
debian-devel) and we are now ending up with a package that is IMHO
affected by a "testing removal" warning for no good reason.
Was there any outcome
Hi Sudip,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> Apologies for not mentioning it as 'serious' bug in my mass-bug mail
> on debian-devel. That was my first mass-bug mail and I was wondering
> what I have missed in it. :(
No need to apologize. Its great that you care
HI Andreas,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:02 AM Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> Hi Sudip,
>
> I fully agree that this is a bug and I'm currently building a fix for
> this. However, I fail to see in how far this bug fulfills the criterion
> for a serious bug. IMHO, important or normal is OK, but if you
Hi Sudip,
I fully agree that this is a bug and I'm currently building a fix for
this. However, I fail to see in how far this bug fulfills the criterion
for a serious bug. IMHO, important or normal is OK, but if you think
this kind of bug should be serious please discuss this on debian-devel
Source: bart
Severity: serious
Usertags: superficialtest
X-Debbugs-CC: elb...@debian.org
Hi,
The test done in the autopkgtest of 'bart' does not provide
significant test coverage and it should be marked with "Restrictions:
superficial".
Ref:
17 matches
Mail list logo
