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

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On 16.01.2017 22:00, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:02:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>>> Should I ask the Technical Committee to rule out that FTBFS bugs are RC,
>>> even if they did not happen in buildd.debian.org yet?
>> This seems excessively aggressive.
> No, really it's not. It's already current practice:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=subject%3AFTBFS;submitter=lamby%40debian.org
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=subject%3AFTBFS;submitter=lucas%40debian.org
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=subject%3AFTBFS;submitter=sanvila%40debian.org
> Are you suggesting that we should refrain from reporting FTBFS bugs as
> serious unless we have a build log from buildd.debian.org in our hands?
> I'm sure you are not, but I've seen people downgrade bugs "because
> they do not happen in buildd.debian.org" and at the same time nobody
> of them realize what would happen if we followed such silly
> (and wrong) rule in a consistent way.


No, this is not current practice. But you are obviously trying to force
it this way by all means necessary. Nobody asks you from refraining to
report those kind of bugs but what I and other people are seriously
questioning is your handling of severity levels. You always assume RC
severity even when it is proven that the package works and builds fine
for the majority of people. You don't care what maintainers think about
the issue. Many people, me included, get annoyed and then resolve this
"issue" by disabling the responsible test and focus on more pressing
matters. There is nothing wrong with tests per se which try to catch
_real life_ issues though.

How can this be in the best interest of users and developers? First of
all I think your test environment is fundamentally flawed. It is
possible to make every package in the archive fail to build from source
by choosing extremely unusual parameters. Tests and packages require a
certain amount of memory and a certain amount of disk space. Tests make
assumptions about what is to be expected in a real life environment.
Nobody in his right mind would agree with me that a build failure due to
low memory on a user's machine is RC when the buildds and 99,9 % of all
standard computers are able to compile the package.

Should this become the standard in Debian, then I would at least expect
that we define some sort of reference system (in terms of hardware
specs) against which these rebuilds are run. In my opinion the buildd
network is a reasonable candidate. A randomly emulated environment is not.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: