[DRE-maint] Bug#1104697: ruby-dbf: FTBFS caused by failure/Error: expect(record.name.encode('UTF-8').unpack1('H4')).to eq 'd0b0'

Leandro Cunha Tue, 20 May 2025 15:51:39 -0700

Hello again!

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:46 PM Leandro Cunha <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In this link you can see which unstable tests failed and on which
> architectures. Resolving in Reproducible Builds, resolves in Salsa CI
> as well.
>
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/ruby-dbf.html
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:35 PM Leandro Cunha <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:16 PM Santiago Vila <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > El 20/5/25 a las 18:19, Leandro Cunha escribió:
> > > > The build may fail on any build that does not have unicode as UTF-8 in
> > > > its environment. I don't know if this would be a possible scenario
> > > > given our reality living in Brazil and speaking Portuguese (or English
> > > > or Spanish), as the tests fail, both reproducible builds and Salsa CI.
> > > > Since there is a new version pending and trixie has already advanced
> > > > to hard freeze, I think it is more interesting to wait to pass this
> > > > stage. This is according to what is stated in the log:
> > >
> > > Hello. I can build this package just fine using sbuild, so I agree this 
> > > is not RC.
> > >
> > > But the builds which fails in Salsa CI are the normal builds (amd64 and 
> > > i386),
> > > not the one by reprotest. Salsa CI is supposed to be as similar as 
> > > possible to
> > > a "normal" build (made by sbuild), so I believe there is something
> > > subtle going on here (which I would like to know if somebody figures out).
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > This could be resolved normally in GitLab CI with:
> > variables:
> > LANG: en_US.UTF-8
> > LC_ALL: en_US.UTF-8
> > And I'm checking in the Salsa CI if this would be possible, but I'm
> > giving priority to reproducible builds in which the test fails for
> > unstable and trixie. But I confess that this bug left me with doubts
> > about which would be more appropriate, serious or important. But due
> > to the automatic removal already scheduled, it was better to down to
> > important due to the failure in reprotest (FTBFS flag) that I'm giving
> > more emphasis to.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Leandro Cunha
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Leandro Cunha


Your email didn't reach me, Kanashiro. There's nothing in the SPAM.

I raised the possibility that FTBFS occurs when UTF-8 is not used as
Unicode (which is an atypical situation) and that's why I didn't
include it as a normal severity (it can occur outside of reproducible
builds). But I don't understand why your request for a normal severity
wasn't honored by BTS, Kanashiro. In any case, I did this through the
BTS control server and it wouldn't be ideal to submit something like
this at this time, since it would only be possible to pass it on for
testing after the release. And I also don't see any sense of urgency,
since it's a non-critical bug for the release right now.

Also, when I was at work during a break, I took a look at the
changelog and there are changes associated with this that I'd like to
test in 5.0.1. But since I'm using a non-Debian laptop that's owned by
the company, I didn't test it. But I should do that now.

-- 
Cheers,
Leandro Cunha

_______________________________________________
Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers

[DRE-maint] Bug#1104697: ruby-dbf: FTBFS caused by failure/Error: expect(record.name.encode('UTF-8').unpack1('H4')).to eq 'd0b0'

Reply via email to