On Saturday, January 07, 2017 12:10:58 AM Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > FTBFS bugs are only RC when there is an existing binary for the > > architecture. > That's not really accurate, because the binary could have been created > by "cheating" (for example, the package may have missing build-dependencies > but the uploaded packages were made in a chroot that had them installed). > > What you mean here, I suppose, is that a FTBFS is not RC when the > failure only happens on architectures that were previously unsupported. > > Logically, since this was the initial upload, the list of "supported > architetures" was initially empty.
Yes. Actually though it's currently unsupported. If a package used to have a binary for an architecture that was later removed, then it's not an RC bug for it to continue to FTBFS. FTBFS arch only or all only is RC for other reasons, so for that reason, I think it's OK given how this bug was redefined a bit. Scott K
