Re: Hash randomization test failures
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 04:49:19PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> The following bugs are almost certainly caused by tests broken by
> hash randomisation: they don't represent functional failures in the
> software, and doesn't always cause FTBFS. In this sense, my view is that
> like other sporadic build failures, they can be downgraded to important.
> Does this sound reasonable to others?
As long as it's only the tests that are broken, that does sound reasonable
to me. I guess the probability of the failure should influence the
decision too, but I'm not sure where to draw the line. Clearly a package
that fails to build (for instance) 90% of the time should be considered
RC-buggy.
Also, at the risk of stating the obvious: I don't think we can tell
whether a build failure is caused by functional breakage or just test
suite fragility without looking at the code, right? The code could
actually be relying on the old hash behaviour, and that could cause very
similar sporadic test suite failures.
> #711428 libcgi-application-plugin-authentication-perl
> #711436 libdbix-abstract-perl
> #711444 libgraph-readwrite-perl
> #711446 libgraph-writer-graphviz-perl
> #711604 libmime-lite-html-perl
> #711614 libscriptalicious-perl
> #711615 libsearch-estraier-perl
> #720018 libhtml-wikiconverter-moinmoin-perl
> #720271 libnet-jabber-perl
--
Niko Tyni ntyni@debian.org
Reply to: