On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 15:22:40 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 02:43:11PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 13:41:03 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > > What about just release policy when it says "packages must autobuild from > > > source"? > > > Does such statement suddenly not refer to our official autobuilders? > > > > I don't see that statement in the stretch RC policy. > > This is what it says: Packages must autobuild without failure on all > architectures on which they are supported. > > Do you mean that because it is not supported on amd64, it does not > need to build on the Arch:all autobuilder? (which runs amd64). > That sentence has been there forever (e.g. it's in https://release.debian.org/etch/rc_policy.txt) and has never been applied to arch:all. Just because we now have arch:all autobuilders doesn't change what that sentence means. And just because our infrastructure is deficient (in not allowing to build arch:all on non-amd64) doesn't make this suddenly a RC bug in those packages.
> Also: Is there any particular reason why this is a normal bug and > the other bug (Bug#861605: pixfrogger) has been closed? > Because this bug has some history with maybe relevant information in it, and afaict #861605 does not. They're both blocked by improvements in our infrastructure, and I don't see value in keeping an empty bug around as a placeholder. Cheers, Julien
