Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Bug#842452: FTBFS depdnding on docs/apibuild.py
timestamp (api docs not buildable)"):
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 09:24:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The reason I think it's RC is that it demonstrates that the
> > documentation files shipped in the package are not buildable from
> > source (at least, using tools in the current version of Debian
> > unstable main).
>
> IMO, it does not demonstrate that the files are unbuildable.
>
> It is completely possible that they are indeed buildable from source,
> but using additional build-depeds.
You're right, of course. It only demonstrates that the docs are
_probably_ unbuildable. To me, the error message doesn't seem to
indicate a missing build-dependency. I'd be happy to be shown to be
wrong.
> In this case: are the existence of "apibuild.py.stamp" and the
> references to apibuild.py in the Makefile not a good indication that
> maybe you can't just modify apibuild.py and expect everything to work?
I thought those were probably accidental. It doesn't seem likely to
me that the maintainers intend this situation.
So, anyway: if the maintainers want to downgrade this bug then frankly
I won't take it any further. I do think that recent discussions about
non-buildable js files etc. have shown that, on the whole, the project
thinks that stuff in .debs should be built from source; and that when
the provided source does not produce the stuff in the .debs, that's an
RC bug.
But as I say I don't have any interest in making a fight out of this.
I filed the bug because I thought the Debian libvirt maintainers
probably didn't intend this situation and would like to know about
it. I gave it the severity I thought was appropriate not in order to
be aggressive but just because that's what one does with bug reports.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
