Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not starting on #!
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 04:35:16PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > If I would report hundreds of "dpkg-buildpackage -A" FTBFS bugs against
> > > stable, would you consider that a valuable contribution to unhide problems?
> >
> > Packages in stable must build in stable. If a package from stable FTBFS
> > in stable, then yes, you should report these bugs: they are relevant for
> > stable updates and security updates.
>
> There must be hundreds of packages in jessie that build ok with
> "dpkg-buildpackage" but not with "dpkg-buildpackage -A". That's why
> being able to build with "dpkg-buildpackage -A" was made a release
> goal for stretch (but not retroactively for jessie).
Well, let's expand on that:
FTBFS in stable are [generally] relevant when they are going to get in
the way of security updates and stable updates, i.e. the stable package
FTBFS *in stable*, when being built the way it needs to be built in
stable to create a stable update or security update.
I am not sure dpkg-buildpackage -A is relevant for stable/security
updates, though. stable updates and security updates [for jessie] are
done through a full upload plus a number of binary-arch uploads, so I'd
guess it isn't [for jessie].
I'd say it doesn't make sense to file a FTBFS bug against the stable
version of a package *when the unstable version has it already fixed*,
unless it is going to be actually relevant for stable and security
updates in stable.
--
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: