Santiago Vila wrote...
> I fully agree with the underlying idea, however: If we can measure the
> failure rate, then it means it already fails too often to be acceptable.
Cannot deny I somehow like that approach.
> For that to happen, the around 50 packages which FTBFS randomly should
> do so less than 1% of the time (I'm assuming here that all the others
> "never" fail to build).
>
> I think this is feasible, but only if we start not allowing
> (i.e. making RC) things that we seem to be currently allowing.
We still could make this a buster release goal but stretch-ignore some
packages; at least those with a failure rate below five percent.
> BTW: Could anybody tell me when exactly "FTBFS on a single-CPU machine"
> stopped being serious and RC? Did such thing ever happened?
Wasntme, and I doubt this is a good idea. And although nobody likes the
bringer of bad news, I'm glad people like you build-test the Debian
archive in a setup that is a bit off mainstream but not completely
unrealistic. While this means asking for trouble I consider it a good
idea to identify corner cases while they are in the corner.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature