Bug#850094: marked as done (Please do not remove packages which FTBFS randomly yet)
Your message dated Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:35:28 +0100
with message-id <0272c48b-9d5e-e29c-43e6-1d50e96557d0@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#850094: Please do not remove packages which FTBFS randomly yet
has caused the Debian Bug report #850094,
regarding Please do not remove packages which FTBFS randomly yet
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.)
--
850094: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=850094
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Dear Release Managers:
I've just set the severity of all open bugs in this list to "important":
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=sanvila@debian.org;tag=ftbfs-randomly
(I said in Bug#844264 that I would do something like that. My initial
plan was to downgrade only some of them, but I still have bugs like
those pending to be reported, so I'm not spending my time on calculating
probabilities at this point).
Please help me to ensure that we are not removing (yet!) any package
from stretch because of any of such bugs (I think this mass-severity-setting
should yield such effect, but I'm not 100% sure).
In particular, please let any such package propagate to testing again
(temporarily!) if it was autoremoved because of any of such bugs.
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 16/01/17 01:14, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>> Please help me to ensure that we are not removing (yet!) any package
>> from stretch because of any of such bugs (I think this mass-severity-setting
>> should yield such effect, but I'm not 100% sure).
>>
>> In particular, please let any such package propagate to testing again
>> (temporarily!) if it was autoremoved because of any of such bugs.
>
> I've checked and it seems there is only one package affected by this.
>
> Could you please reallow "src:uncertainties" in stretch?
>
> I downgraded #844571 to important in the mass-downgrading
> but forgot to downgrade #844572 as well (which I have just done).
>
> As a result, the package was autoremoved.
>
> If the plan is to consider RC-ness based on probability of failure,
> this package has a lot more reason to stay in stretch than some
> packages which FTBFS a lot more often.
Unblocked, should migrate in 12 hours.
Emilio
--- End Message ---
Reply to: