[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#781517: marked as done (tracker.d.o: please don't link ftbfs issues on reproducible.d.n)

Your message dated Sun, 17 May 2015 15:41:49 +0200
with message-id <201505171541.57640.holger@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#781517: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#781517: tracker.d.o: please don't link ftbfs issues on reproducible.d.n
has caused the Debian Bug report #781517,
regarding tracker.d.o: please don't link ftbfs issues on reproducible.d.n
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
781517: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781517
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: tracker.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Hi,

while you thankfully added links to unreproducible packages on 
reproducible.debian.net you've also added links to packages which fail to 
build from source there, as can for example be seen on 
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ocaml-faad

Please don't do that, ftbfs issues on reproducible.d.n can have several causes 
not steeming from the package (eg half of the 700 ftbfs errors in unstable 
come from 
https://reproducible.debian.net/issues/unstable/timestamps_from_cpp_macros_issue.html 
and there are more, like those caused by #677666 or #780587 or others.

IOW: ftbfs issues on reproducible.d.n are - _somewhat_ - "false negatives" atm 
and thus should not be brought to the maintainers attention on tracker.d.o 
right now.

Just listing the unreproducible packages is pretty good already!

Thanks for tracker.d.o!


cheers,
	Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

(sorry for letting this undealt with for some weeks..)

On Mittwoch, 29. April 2015, Holger Levsen wrote:
> true, but I still think we shouldn't mark known false ftbfs as ftbfs...
> but:
> 
> we know how to exclude these false results (see the ftbfs pages on rb.d.n)
> so we should only flag those real ftbfs in the json output. which is just
> a matter of doing it...

I finally got around to implement this and reproducible.json now doesnt 
include these FTBFS issues:

filtered_issues = ('timestamps_from_cpp_macros' , 'ftbfs_werror_equals', 
'bad_handling_of_extra_warnings', 'ftbfs_pbuilder_malformed_dsc', 
'ftbfs_in_jenkins_setup', 'ftbfs_build_depends_not_available_on_amd64' )

These issues are linked and explained from 
https://reproducible.debian.net/index_issues.html if you are curious.

Thus I will close this bug now, as it might be helpful to indicate FTBFS 
issues on tracker.d.o. (That, I've just looked at three FTBFS issues and there 
was no hint about those issues - did you silently change this without closing 
this bug? Cause now that our .json is meaningful in regards to FTBFS issues, 
it would be nice to indicate those.)


cheers,
	Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---
Reply to: