Re: aren't unreliable tests worse than none? (Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly)

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: aren't unreliable tests worse than none? (Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly)"):
> The point is that they don't randomly fail in the sense that they don't
> fail n% of the time when run in any possible build environment.  Rather,
> in the subset of cases we're talking about in this thread, the tests work
> reliably on the developer's machine and on the buildd network, but fail
> either reliably or randomly in other build environments.
> 
> This is, in a sense, an unreliable test, but it's not unreliable in a way
> that directly affects the main line of package development.

I find this argument, from a Debian Developer, utterly outrageous.

We are supposed, in Debian, not just to care about what affects us
directly.  We are supposed to be acting in the interests of our users
and our downstreams.

We don't overlook licence problems that have Debian-specific
exceptions.  Neither should we not overlook an RC bug, on the grounds
that it doesn't "directly [affect] the main line of [Debian] package
development."

Ian.
(totally boggled)