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

Bug#903211: marked as done (release.debian.org: How to handle unbuildable packages in buster)

Your message dated Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:49:32 +0100
with message-id <587ac391-62f2-443f-9147-1bfb00cd08a3@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#903211: Checking for removal of BD [was Re: release.debian.org: How to handle unbuildable packages in buster]
has caused the Debian Bug report #903211,
regarding release.debian.org: How to handle unbuildable packages in buster
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.)


-- 
903211: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=903211
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Dear Release Managers:

I'm looking for guidance and advice here.

I'm reporting FTBFS bugs in testing, but I'm skipping bugs of type
"unmet build-depends" because I've heard somewhere that Britney takes
care of that.

However, I don't see the procedure is working 100% correctly (maybe
because of transitive build-dependencies/dependencies).

The question: It is still ok to submit FTBFS bugs so that the rule
"package in buster must be buildable in buster" is met?

Thanks.

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

On 12/16/25 19:36, Paul Gevers wrote:
I implemented this: https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/britney2/-/ merge_requests/120 


Deployed.

This became commit 6fe1bf1d.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: