Hi Santiago,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 01:22:21PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> After building all the archive (trixie/sid) with nocheck, I only found 33 new
> packages which fail to build with nocheck that were not reported before.
> Admittedly
> a little bit more than I expected, but certainly not "hundreds" as some
> people feared.
Thanks for performing these builds!
For the rest of this mail, I am going to assume that "with nocheck"
means "when enabling the nocheck build profile" (see Simon's mail for
context). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> My current plan for now would be to report them as "important" (using some
> usertag) with the following disclaimer:
I argue that the correct severity is serious. The release team agreed to
treat them as rc bugs about two years ago and I have reported more than
33 at rc severity. If we were not treating them as rc, the autoremover
could break trixie in the sense that it would no longer be
self-contained. So we should either have them rc, or change the behavior
of the autoremover to disregard <!nocheck> restrictions.
The other side of this is that erroneous <!nocheck> restrictions (and
that's what it is most of the time) are trivial to "fix". With rare
exceptions, you simply drop them. So while 33 may be a worrisome number
of additional rc bugs, the effort spent on fixing them is rather low in
practice.
That said, Emilio explicitly asked them not to be filed as rc on irc.
That feels like RT is not internally consistent here. How about filing
them as rc now and tagging them trixie-ignore later if we deem the
effort too big?
When filing them, please ensure that you file them with the source
package ("Source: ..." or "Package: src:...") and add the ftbfs tag such
that other automatic ftbfs reporters don't file duplicates.
Helmut
