Re: FTBFS for Archetecture all package (Bug#167049)
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Does documentation package of "Architecture: all" which has been build
> properly in the stable but not in the unstable due to tetex differences
> deserve to receive "serious" bug (RC bug) report or not?
Yes, since it HAS the bug. It should, however, be tagged "sid", to make it
clear that the package in "woody" doesn't have the problem.
> To me preventing documentation package usable in all architecture as a
> binary package due to the build dependency is a counter productive act
> and, with my this post, it will not happen intentionally in the future,
> I wish.
I am not completely sure I understood you correctly. Adding the
build-dependency did what to your package to make it not useable in the
"all' architecture ?
> To me "normal" should have been suffice. (I could have lowered the
> priority too.)
Did the severity of the bug cause trouble with "testing" or something like
> "A package that does not build from source is a serious violation of
> policy. It's not about usability process." is a bit stretch for me.
Well, a package that does not build from source IS very bad indeed. One
that does not build from source in certain arches is not that bad (since it
DOES build from source in other arches), but it still needs to be fixed.
> sponsor were not perfect in testing. For documentation writers, last
> thing we want to do is wait too long for stable version of program
> infrastructures and miss timing for release.
Well, bugs will happen, and will be fixed. However, bugs in documentation
packages are considered as serious as a bug in a ordinary package, and I
doubt this will change...
> Policy 2.4.2 Package relationship only states "should be specified" in
> the first paragraph. Serious is defined as a severe violation of Debian
Well, FTBFS is different when caused by missing build-dependencies, or wrong
build-dependencies. If you don't have any build-dependencies, it is an
annoyance but not a "severity serious" bug (because the dependencies are
unknown, and policy says 'should'). If you DO have build-dependencies, it
is a "severe" or "grave" bug (I don't know which because I didn't go hunting
down in policy to verify that it states the build-dependencies MUST be
correct... although IMHO that'd be implied anyway).
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot