Bug#1116376: MBF: Packages which FTBFS when built with the nocheck profile
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 08:35:55PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 28-09-2025 22:52, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Hmm, ok, I will send something to -devel, but note that at some point
> > such inform/discuss should be considered implicit and taken from granted.
>
>
> That's exactly what I implied. This is a new category, hence one thread on
> d-devel makes sense to me.
Ah, ok. One last time.
(btw: I think I will do something similar with the category "will
FTBFS in forky during its supported period").
> > To me they are all different, but maybe it's just because I've not
> > tried to fix too many of them myself yet.
>
>
> How many appear to be in the non-trivial class? To be fair, I didn't
> consider this twist.
Not enough data to make statistics.
But I would say there is another big class of failures: the cases
where dh_auto_install expect some data to be present, but such data is
only built by dh_auto_test.
In those cases the right fix is to convince the build framework to
build and install such data regardless of nocheck, but without
running the tests.
(Thanks for asking, I've just added the above to the wiki page :-)
Two recent examples:
https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/hmmer/-/commit/eaf3d0c9add2c70817c15c429dce056f53245102
https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcat/-/commit/d1b31580e590221c82de1013271ee19b578e36b9
There is a good pool of (still unreported) build failures in med-team, maybe
I can make the wiki page more complete after having a look at them.
Thanks.
Reply to: