On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:43:24PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote: > >> If a package fails to build with an alternate compiler (that is, it > >> correctly *uses* the compiler, but the compiler reports a fatal error), > >> is that considered a bug, and what severity does it have? > > > > I'd not consider a FTBFS with a non-critical compiler to be too high of > > a severity, likely not RC. In fact, I'd likely only file a bug if the > > issue is with the Debian packaging -- e.g. hardcoding CC or CXX in > > d/rules or so, when the package builds fine without gcc otherwise. > > The usage of the term "must" and "shall" in the policy wording would > have the effect of making any such issues RC since those would become > policy violations. Switching the the terms to "should" would probably > fix that. > > Hardcoded usage of CC or CXX (for example, CC=gcc) should be avoid and > documented if necessary. > Debian build tools _should_ respect the CC and CXX variables if provided. If > not, they _should_ default to /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++ Indeed. However, this is a policy on d/rules, so hard-coding CC would be RC, not a FTBFS on a non-gcc compiler. However, perhaps you're right anyway. > > Best wishes, > Mike Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature