[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Processed: breaking the build of other packages is RC

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:41 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 01:55 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >> If a FTBFS in a package is RC, it would be very strange if an update of 
> >> build dependency package that causes a buld failure wasn't RC...
> >> 
> > This seems logical, except by inference you've just made almost every
> > bug in a tool-chain or build-system package Release Critical, which
> > would make the BTS vastly non-useful for those of us who maintain such
> > packages.
> On the other hand you wouldn't want a broken toolchain to enter sarge
> and an RC bug would do that.
A "broken toolchain" would be one which breaks *everything* -- not one
that breaks one or two packages.

> > We don't, however, take build dependencies into account when preparing a
> > release.  Britney doesn't guarantee that testing is buildable, a package
> > can be placed in stable without its necessary build-depends.
> Which is a bug and not a wanted feature. People are working on that so
> in the future Build-Depends might be checked utomatically for sarge.
It's still the case currently though.

> > So this makes the issue of how to deal with a package whose FTFBS is
> > caused by a build-depend a slightly interesting one.  In the end, one
> > can always use the previous version of the build-depend and upload with
> > that, close the FTBFS bug and open a new one or reassign with a
> > different title and severity against the build-depend package.
> >
> > As I've stated, my personal preference for "it breaks one or two
> > packages that work with the older version" is the 'important' severity.
> If it just breaks one or two sources it would just be buggy. If it
> breaks all sources it would be unusable. So yeah, important or just
> normal if its just special sources that break. But don't get angry
> about people that leave the severity alone when reassigning a FTBFS.
I don't, I just change it.  I get angry when people wander through my
bug list randomly bumping severities without even checking with me.

> > This "friendly" approach doesn't even apply for Libtool though, it
> > should never be a build-depend -- the necessary files should be included
> > in the package.  All the package has to do is roll back, upload a new
> > version and fix the bug.  A separate bug can be opened at the lower
> > severity against Libtool.
> Uh oh. Do you know how many packages Build-Depend on libtool or forget
> to Build-Conflict with it (i.e. use it when its available)?
> Are you as libtool maintainer saying we should file a bug about any
> source that uses libtool during build?
No, it's not a bug, it's just a stupid thing to do for any of the

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: