On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 04:35:16PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > If I would report hundreds of "dpkg-buildpackage -A" FTBFS bugs against > > > stable, would you consider that a valuable contribution to unhide > > > problems? > > > > Packages in stable must build in stable. If a package from stable FTBFS > > in stable, then yes, you should report these bugs: they are relevant for > > stable updates and security updates. > > There must be hundreds of packages in jessie that build ok with > "dpkg-buildpackage" but not with "dpkg-buildpackage -A". That's why > being able to build with "dpkg-buildpackage -A" was made a release > goal for stretch (but not retroactively for jessie).
Well, let's expand on that: FTBFS in stable are [generally] relevant when they are going to get in the way of security updates and stable updates, i.e. the stable package FTBFS *in stable*, when being built the way it needs to be built in stable to create a stable update or security update. I am not sure dpkg-buildpackage -A is relevant for stable/security updates, though. stable updates and security updates [for jessie] are done through a full upload plus a number of binary-arch uploads, so I'd guess it isn't [for jessie]. I'd say it doesn't make sense to file a FTBFS bug against the stable version of a package *when the unstable version has it already fixed*, unless it is going to be actually relevant for stable and security updates in stable. -- Henrique Holschuh
