Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:43:06 -0800
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly
Holger Levsen <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> + A FTBFS bug is still RC even if:
>> + it doesn't happens on buildd.debian.net;
>> + it only happens randomly;
>> + it only happens on machines with one (virtual) cpu core.
> while I do agree that these are *not* good criterias to justify whether
> something is *not* RC, I fear there are bugs for which this is true,
> however the justification why they are not RC is different.
> And this is why patches to policy are hard :)
Also, Policy is not the tool for declaring things RC. Policy states
whether or not things are bugs, and draws a must vs. should distinction
that is the *default* for RCness, but I don't think anyone has been
arguing about the default. Most of this discussion has either been about
general principles (and that probably hasn't been hugely productive) or
about whether an exception should be made for one reason or another for
some specific bug that Santiago found.
Those exceptions are exactly why the release team sets RC criteria
somewhat independently of Policy, so that the practical implications of
making a bug RC can be considered separately from the general question of
what our default requirements for the archive are. Sometimes exceptions
are needed based on release timing or impact to the release, but should be
evaluated by a human who can use reasonable discretion.
That said, Policy doesn't clearly state in the expected place that
packages are required to build from source, probably mostly because it's
been one of those base assumptions that everyone working on Policy shared.
I think it would make sense to be more explicit and obvious about this in
Policy. If someone wants to take a crack at that, probably for section 4
before 4.1 since it's really fundamental to the whole concept of source
packages, I'd be happy to review. (I could have sworn that we had an open
bug about this and some requirement other than the DFSG stuff in 2.2, but
I wasn't able to find either, which underscores that this would be
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>