Re: Exclicitly or "implicitly" mark architectures a packages does not build
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:12:09 +0100
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Exclicitly or "implicitly" mark architectures a packages does not build
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:51:55PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Thus it would be great to mark such packages as "currently ftbfs on
> $arch, we know that, it's not great, but expected".
> One of way of marking this is certainly to have a bug open, though I can
> see how maintainers do not want such bugs to clutter their views of the BTS.
Besides cluttering the view of BTS I think that's not the best approach
since it requires manual interaction that somebody really files a bug
which is not granted. Even if somebody like Lukas took over the task of
filing bugs manually that's IMHO wasted time since you can finally
"calculate" the packages in question with a sensibly crafted UDD query.
So why on one hand spending developer time to file a bug and why
cluttering BTS view on the other hand if things could be automatically
calculated and you can get an up to date list easily?
> Hmm. Something certainly *is* buggy, if "only" debian/control for not
> having a better way to express this. :-)
At least Wookey and I have the opinion that nothing (also not
debian/contol) is buggy - that's why I was asking whether closing the
bug is a sensible course of action. I also do not like to set > 20