Hello everybody, pardon me but I do not see the GCC mass bug filing being discussed on this list before it was started.
Give the scale if build failure (hundreds of failures for the Debian Med packaging team for instance), I want to question if the MBF is premature. What other information do we get apart from "most upstreams are not ready" ? Again, given the scale, Debian can not expect that the package maintainers are going to contact each upstream and send a patch. We are not paid for that. On the other hand, we also rely on "the ecosystem" to do the work by themselves so that the packages eventually start to build fine with GCC 15 them after we upgrade them to newer upstream versions. But who will close the hundreds of bugs? I mean, query the BTS, get a bug number, paste it in a changelog, etc, just to convey information about a change that did not happen in Debian ? We are not paid for that. If we want to have stats and know what is the percentage of our pakcages that adopted GCC 15 compatibility at a given point of time, mass rebuilds are enough. Salsa CI also comes to the mind. But before we reach the point that we start to track release blockers, I question if mass bug filings are a tool that makes the best use of our volunteer time? Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://fediscience.org/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
