Am 29.09.2016 um 21:04 schrieb Santiago Vila: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:26:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> I don't see what we would gain by disabling the failing tests. >> They are there to catch regressions after all. So this would be a step >> backwards. > > Fixing RC bugs have multiple benefits :-) We would avoid the package > from being autoremoved from testing, or having to ask release managers > for permission to use stretch-ignore. > > Ok, you still don't think this is RC. Well, even in such case, we > would gain a package that always build. That's everything I ask. > > Currently, for me, it is as if this package had an undeclared > "build-depends: buildd.debian.org". We should be able to build the > package in every autobuilder which is sane and not misconfigured. > >> If your main objective is to build the package on your own system, you >> can omit the test-suite by setting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck (not su > > That's exactly the issue and that's why I consider this to be RC: > > If my autobuilder is not misconfigured, I should not have to > special-case this package by setting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS at all. > > My main objective was really to check for "dpkg-buildpackage -A", > but when packages FTBFS for other reasons not related to using -A, > my secondary objective is ensuring that packages build ok, > and this, naturally, include the tests, so I can't just skip them. > >> Of course, the better option would be if you can investigate why it >> fails on your particular setup. This would be very much appreciated. >> I'm not saying, that there isn't a race somewhere. The point is that >> disabling is not the answer and it's not necessary. > > Yes, of course, I will try to help you to debug this within my possibilities. > > [ I'm going to provide the backtrace you asked in the other email ] > > But you are making a balance which IMO is a little bit biased. You > don't see the need to disable the failing tests because you have > already downgraded the bug! > > Please think about this bug as RC. Your options would be: > > A. Invest time and effort to debug it. > > B. Disable the test, possibly forwarding the bug upstream so that they > investigate, not you. > > Since we are all volunteers, I can't really ask that you do A. > > Everything I ask is that the package builds ok, and for that B would > be completely acceptable. > > I hope this clarifies a previous comment I did that apparently you > didn't like. If you choose B over A for whatever reason, I will never > say it's wrong, or complain or antyhing like that. > > Thanks. >
Sigh, you really like to argue instead of actually addressing the issue. Anyway, to be more constructive, see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772193 If you have anything substantial to add, please follow up at the upstream bug report. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
