On Monday, October 8, 2018 1:58:13 AM CDT Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Steve / Doug
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 07:27, Steve Robbins <st...@sumost.ca> wrote:
> > This level seems a bit extreme, to me, considering the guidelines in
> > https:// www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer
>
> Severity serious is correct. From the RC policy document [1]:
>
> Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on which
> they are supported.
Right, and googletest autobuilds while mathicgb does not. So my reading is
that this criteria applies to a bug in mathicgb, not googletest.
> > Moreover, it's not clear that the bug lies with googletest.
>
> Yes, there is at least an RC bug in googletest or mathicgb, hence Paul
> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 20:27, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Due to the nature of this issue, I filed
> > this bug report against both packages. Can you please investigate the
> > situation and reassign the bug to the right package?
Yes. Clearly there is a change in the interface that mathicgb is using. I
can't tell whether the change to googletest was incidental or deliberate. In
the former case, there would be a bug in googletest. However, it would not be
serious in my reading of the criteria ("is a severe violation of Debian policy
(roughly, it violates a must or required directive), or, in the package
maintainer's or release manager's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for
release").
> Googletest 1.8.1-1 should not migrate to testing as long as mathicgb
> FTBFS.
This is the assertion that I don't understand.
-Steve
