Bug#844855: gcc-5: FTBFS: conftest.c:136: undefined reference to `setproctitle'

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016, Matthias Klose wrote:

> > It's unlikely a hardware problem because the build was made in a
> > virtual machine and the build was tried twice. This is written
> > in the bug report itself.
> > 
> > This is a lot more likely to be a bug which happens randomly,
> > for example, a bug in the Makefile.
> > 
> > Such bugs *do* exist, just see
> > 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841096
> > 
> > for a very simple example.
> > 
> > 
> > In this case, there is absolutely zero evidence that it's a hardware
> > problem and not a bug which happens randomly.
> > 
> > Do you always close bugs which happen randomly just because you can't
> > reproduce them yourself, or can you acknowledge the fact that not all
> > packages either always build or always fail?
> > 
> > (I can give a lot more examples of packages which fail to build
> > randomly if you are interested).
> 
> it might not be "hardware" problem, but with all this "virtual overhead" a
> corruption with some file system or something else.  Yes, I intend to close such
> bug reports,

It's completely ok to close a report which happens because of hardware
problems. However, that's not the kind of randomness I was talking
about.

I refer, for example, to randomness which happens when some Makefile
expect the output of "find" to be in a certain order.

[ Please read the link I posted before ]

There is no canonical order for the output of "find", so different
filesystem ordering does not mean the system is misconfigured or that
there is corruption in the filesystem.

> because GCC itself retries to build these files, and apparently it
> succeeded to build it (or else you wouldn't see this message).  That might be a
> real bug, but then GCC is the wrong package to file a bug report for.

What would be the right package for a bug in one of GCC Makefiles, then?

What if Lucas was able to reproduce this in two different machines and
the failure and the error message was the same? Would you discard
"filesystem corruption" as the "most likely reason" in such case?

[ Or maybe you are claiming that GCC Makefiles are 100% bug-free and
  absolutely perfect and any evidence in contrary *must* be an error?
  I really hope that's not what you meant here. ]

Thanks.