Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting"):
> Would it work, for example, if I propose a change to Debian Policy

I think the problem here is that:

 - Some packages do not build in quite sane non-buildd build
   environments, but:
 - Some build environments are too weird or too broken
 - We do not have the effort to write a exhaustive specificatio
   which will tell the difference in all cases
 - Worse, the issue is not addressed in policy at all so there
   is not even anywhere to put the answer for specific cases
 - We regard some FTBFS issues as non-RC but still bugs,
   and policy does not mention this at all

I suggest the following approach:

 - Introduce the words "supported" and "reasonable".  So

    Packages must build from source in any supported environment;
    they should build from source in any reasonable environment.

 - Provide a place to answer these questions:

    What is a supported, or a reasonable, environment, is not
    completely defined, but here are some examples:

    - An environment with only one cpu available is supported.
    - An environment with a working but non-default compiler
      is reasonable but not supported.

etc.

On the point at issue, do these packages build in a cheap single-vcpu
vm from some kind of cloud vm service ?  ISTM that this is a much
better argument than the one you made, if the premise is true.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.