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

Re: Bug#624997: writerperfect: FTBFS: Style.hxx:36:45: error: 'NULL' was not declared in this scope

(Ccing -devel@, since I have been asked about that by others)

On 03/05/11 at 01:16 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> tag 624997 - wheezy
> thanks
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:39:43PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Source: writerperfect
> > Version: 0.8.0-3
> > Severity: serious
> > Tags: wheezy sid
> No. gcc 4.6 is not in wheezy. If you find gcc 4.6 FTBFSes please take
> care on where and when this stuff actually takes place.
> Grüße/Regards,

Note that the alternatives are:
- tag it 'sid'. But then, I would need to determine the root cause of
  each FTBFS, and when the status of the FTBFS changes in testing.
- do not tag it. But then, it would be seen as affecting stable.

What I would need is a way to express "It FTBFS in sid. I know it
doesn't FTBFS in stable, I don't know about wheezy."

Doing more investigation than what I currently do is impossible for me.
There are currently 1231 packages failing to build in sid. Yesterday, I
filed about 300 bugs about such packages, but there are still 403
packages with no bug filed[1]. I think that the priority is to file those
bugs so maintainers get aware of it, not to increase the quality of my
bug reporting, sorry.

Btw, help is needed (as always). Required skills are:
- interest in QA
- good investigation skills
- willingness to handle tasks on a regular basis, and keep doing
  them for a long time
The scripts to analyze logs and generate bug reports are in Ruby, so
it's also better if you can work in this language, though it's not
completely necessary.

[1] My script classifies failures based on the "kind" of failure (fail
to install build-depends, GCC or linking errors, etc.) For some kind of
failures, it can extract the error message automatically, but for some
others, it's harder to extract the "interesting" part of the log.
Usually, I file the easy bugs (no manual editing) first.

- Lucas

Reply to: