On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:48:00AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 21:19:23 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Any progress on this? > > > > In case it helps, I made a list of bugs in this FTBFS-randomly category: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-randomly;users=sanv...@debian.org > > > > In almost all cases, the failure happens because there is a test which > > fails. > > > > So: Why do we allow tests to make the package to fail if we then do > > not consider the failure to be RC? > > > > IMO, either the program is ok when the test fails, or it's not. > > I'm afraid it's more nuanced than this, and trying to make it all white > or all black is not helpful.
Thanks a lot for replying. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to interpret that. Do you mean it's better not to have a common rule for these bugs and instead decide on a case by case basis? Could we please agree, at least, that this is RC in general and maintainers should ask for stretch-ignore tag? I don't think this is asking too much. The alternative is what it's currently happening: "Why bother to ask for permission to use stretch-ignore tag when you can always downgrade a RC bug to wishlist?" (Based on what they do, this is what some maintainers seem to think). Thanks.
