Re: glib2.0 on i386
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 12:29:15 +0100
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 02:44:55AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> (07/01/2011):
> > > This is kind of an important architecture, so it would be nice to
> > > not have it lag behind so far (it just caused
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/609277 to occur - while it's nice to catch
> > > such bugs, the fact that the build failed is a concern to me).
> > > Does the build just need to be requeued?
> >
> > No, a missing or laggy build doesn't *cause* FTBFS. Point out, or
> > reveal an insufficient version in a build-dep, rather.
> >
> > Requeuing is cheap, given back. Please note that you want to talk to
> > the buildd admins for such issues (Cc'd).
>
> I will never give back a package if it clearly has a RC bug in it
> that made it fail. Fix the bug instead.
>
>
Speaking of, does anyone have suggestions for how to deal w/ responses
like the one in #609277 ("it's not an RC bug", with a
downgrade). I point people to policy 4.2, but that can be interpreted
broadly.
Reply to: