On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:36:07AM -0700, Andrew Ayer wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:08:13 +0200 > Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ahhh, that's interesting. My situation is that I just wanted to find > > out why some of our team packages are about to be removed. I do not > > expect myself to be very helpful in fixing the problem. The only > > thing I would like to know is why this bug is qualified as serious if > > there is no build error when using the available tools but fails only > > with a patched tool. IMHO this does qualify as important as > > maximum. Please do not understand me wrong: Any bug should be fixed > > but I see no point in kicking a chain of packages out uf testing only > > because a package using a patched debhelper fails to build. > > Hi Andreas, > > I agree the severity was set too high considering it only affected > builds with a patched debhelper. I had no idea strip-nondeterminism > had accumulated so many reverse dependencies, or I would have been more > proactive about making sure packages outside of the reproducible > builds effort weren't bothered with an auto-removal notice.
That's WOW.
i was aware some packages started build-depending on it, but nothing like this.
Also, broken (and also missing, fwiw) build-dep does not causes removal from
testing [1], so that's sound weird+wrong.
Can you tell me of such package so i can get a look at what's going on more
closely?
[1] Actually I find this behaviour wrong and I have on my todo to propose a
patch for Britney to consider also them.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
