On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 07:31:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Thanks for your interest in this subject and for wanting to increase the
> stability of builds in Debian.
>
> As Julien mentioned earlier, build failures are sadly not as black and
> white as one might want them to be. Especially
Santiago Vila:
> Dear Release Managers:
>
> If Release Policy wording is not going to be clarified in any way, that's ok.
>
> [...]
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks.
>
Hi Santiago,
Thanks for your interest in this subject and for wanting to increase the
stability of builds in Debian.
As
Dear Release Managers:
If Release Policy wording is not going to be clarified in any way, that's ok.
Let's assume, for example [1, 2], that I found a package which FTBFS
more than 90% of the time on single-CPU machines, and rarely on
buildd.debian.org.
I do think that such bugs should still be
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016, Florian Schlichting wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:04:34PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > So, if establishing a threshold is the only way to achieve that for
> > example Bug #843038 in "elki" is upgraded to serious again, so be it,
> > but as I said, it would be a pity
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:04:34PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> So, if establishing a threshold is the only way to achieve that for
> example Bug #843038 in "elki" is upgraded to serious again, so be it,
> but as I said, it would be a pity if we invest our time trying to
> estimate probabilities
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:28:15PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> A severity:important bug does not mean it's all "ok". It means it's
> still a bug, but we can release with it. Autobuilders can build the
> package given a sane number of tries, security uploads can be built
> etc. If they can't due to
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 08:25:46PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:26:59PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The common rule is that FTBFS is serious. Then there's the real world,
> > where e.g. some tests are timing-dependent and so don't always fail, but
> > having them
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:26:59PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:21:19 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Do you mean it's better not to have a common rule for these bugs and
> > instead decide on a case by case basis?
> >
> > Could we please agree, at least, that this
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:21:19 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Do you mean it's better not to have a common rule for these bugs and
> instead decide on a case by case basis?
>
> Could we please agree, at least, that this is RC in general and
> maintainers should ask for stretch-ignore tag? I
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 04:36:57PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:21:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The alternative is what it's currently happening: "Why bother to ask
> > for permission to use stretch-ignore tag when you can always downgrade
> > a RC bug to
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:21:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The alternative is what it's currently happening: "Why bother to ask
> for permission to use stretch-ignore tag when you can always downgrade
> a RC bug to wishlist?" (Based on what they do, this is what some
> maintainers seem to
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:48:00AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 21:19:23 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Any progress on this?
> >
> > In case it helps, I made a list of bugs in this FTBFS-randomly category:
> >
> >
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 21:19:23 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Any progress on this?
>
> In case it helps, I made a list of bugs in this FTBFS-randomly category:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-randomly;users=sanv...@debian.org
>
> In almost all cases, the failure
Any progress on this?
In case it helps, I made a list of bugs in this FTBFS-randomly category:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-randomly;users=sanv...@debian.org
In almost all cases, the failure happens because there is a test which
fails.
So: Why do we allow tests to
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Dear Release Managers:
Release Policy here
https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt
says:
"Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on which
they are supported".
Please clarify how should this policy be applied when
15 matches
Mail list logo
