On 2023-08-27 02:13, 宋文武 wrote:
> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every 7
> days, and remove a package if it still fail to build in 90 days?
Hi, maybe build failures should be limited to certain platforms that
can cause this treatment, such as (32-bit) x86, x86-64 and a
Bruno Victal writes:
> On 2023-08-27 02:13, 宋文武 wrote:
>> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every 7
>> days, and remove a package if it still fail to build in 90 days?
maybe precedeed by an automated email notification (to guix-bugs) so
that interested people have the c
On 2023-08-27 02:13, 宋文武 wrote:
> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every 7
> days, and remove a package if it still fail to build in 90 days?
I'm not so sure about removing packages, personally if I'm in need of
a package that happens to be broken I find it easier to fix
Hi again,
宋文武 writes:
> Maxime Devos writes:
>
>> For example, naev used to work just fine, yet apparently it doesn't
>> anymore: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65390.
>>
>> Given that Guix has ci.guix.gnu.org, I would expect such new problems
>> to be detected and resolved early, and it was detec
Hello,
宋文武 writes:
> Maxime Devos writes:
>
>> For example, naev used to work just fine, yet apparently it doesn't
>> anymore: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65390.
>>
>> Given that Guix has ci.guix.gnu.org, I would expect such new problems
>> to be detected and resolved early, and it was detected
Maxime Devos writes:
> For example, naev used to work just fine, yet apparently it doesn't
> anymore: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65390.
>
> Given that Guix has ci.guix.gnu.org, I would expect such new problems
> to be detected and resolved early, and it was detected by
> ci.guix.gnu.org, yet goi
