Web lists-archives.com

Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly




On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 08:30 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 at 01:00:33 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Wait a moment. How we do define "common" when applied to a "build
> > environment"?
> 
> Do we rely on it for Debian to function, or was it set up to determine
> what works (e.g. for QA)? The former is common; the latter might not
> be, and failing there is evidence of a possible RC bug but not
> *necessarily* an RC bug itself.
> 
> Debian is an operating system, not an academic exercise. If a package
> builds successfully reliably enough on buildds, porterboxes, and
> developers' hardware or VMs that we can prepare security updates and
> other urgent patches for it in a reasonable time, then it's close
> enough.

...and downstream distributions' build infrastructure, which might be
different from ours.

[...]
> For packages that sometimes FTBFS due to intermittent test failures, I
> for one would rather have the test coverage than not have it.
[...]

While test coverage is obviously a Good Thing in general, any
unreliable test has negative value and should be fixed, disabled, or
made non-fatal to the build.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part