Hi, On Montag, 30. März 2015, Paul Wise wrote: > These seem like FTBFS that should be reported, so the package > maintainers patch out usage of the macros, especially as the plan was > to enable warnings for them by default eventually.
yes, they should be reported. thats why they are listed on https://reproducible.debian.net/issues/unstable/timestamps_from_cpp_macros_issue.html There is *no* need to list them on tracker.d.o, in fact, I consider this *harmful*: once you start showing false negatives, people are less likely to believe the results, thus people start to mentally ignore them. Please dont make this happen. > How can we show FTBFS that do need to be reported but not show FTBFS > that don't need to be reported? Please only show reliable results from reproducible.d.n on tracker.d.o - ftbfs bugs are not reliable. Please exclude them. (What's needed to exclude them would be to include logic from reproducible.debian.net which I dont consider sensible.) cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
