Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting"):
> Would it work, for example, if I propose a change to Debian Policy
I think the problem here is that:
- Some packages do not build in quite sane non-buildd build
environments, but:
- Some build environments are too weird or too broken
- We do not have the effort to write a exhaustive specificatio
which will tell the difference in all cases
- Worse, the issue is not addressed in policy at all so there
is not even anywhere to put the answer for specific cases
- We regard some FTBFS issues as non-RC but still bugs,
and policy does not mention this at all
I suggest the following approach:
- Introduce the words "supported" and "reasonable". So
Packages must build from source in any supported environment;
they should build from source in any reasonable environment.
- Provide a place to answer these questions:
What is a supported, or a reasonable, environment, is not
completely defined, but here are some examples:
- An environment with only one cpu available is supported.
- An environment with a working but non-default compiler
is reasonable but not supported.
etc.
On the point at issue, do these packages build in a cheap single-vcpu
vm from some kind of cloud vm service ? ISTM that this is a much
better argument than the one you made, if the premise is true.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
