On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 08:30 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 at 01:00:33 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Wait a moment. How we do define "common" when applied to a "build > > environment"? > > Do we rely on it for Debian to function, or was it set up to determine > what works (e.g. for QA)? The former is common; the latter might not > be, and failing there is evidence of a possible RC bug but not > *necessarily* an RC bug itself. > > Debian is an operating system, not an academic exercise. If a package > builds successfully reliably enough on buildds, porterboxes, and > developers' hardware or VMs that we can prepare security updates and > other urgent patches for it in a reasonable time, then it's close > enough. ...and downstream distributions' build infrastructure, which might be different from ours. [...] > For packages that sometimes FTBFS due to intermittent test failures, I > for one would rather have the test coverage than not have it. [...] While test coverage is obviously a Good Thing in general, any unreliable test has negative value and should be fixed, disabled, or made non-fatal to the build. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part