severity 956041 wishlist thanks On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:08:34PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > # an FTBFS on a non-release architecture is "important" > severity 956041 important > thanks
Stating that the package "FTBFSes on non-release architectures" is twisting the situation a little bit. The only reason this FTBFSes is that one of its build-dependencies, pandoc, is not available, in turn due to what looks like missing build dependencies(?). AIUI, libmaxminddb would build fine if pandoc was available, right? So unless I'm missing something, I don't think that asking a package to drop a build dependency because it hasn't been ported/built yet on a target architecture is a severity important bug. I also couldn't find a bug against either pandoc or libmaxminddb's reverse dependcies for this issue either, so perhaps I'm not understanding fully why is libmaxminddb special here in this chain of build dependencies. I consider this an ask to rework/simplify upstreams' documentation build system. That seems like a very sensible ask (especially given the limited size of those two documents), but is really a wish rather than a bug the way I see it. Does that makes sense? > This sounds sensible, if upstream is amenable to merging it, at least > as an alternative. Do you have working relationship with upstream and > could test the waters, so to speak, whether they would merge it, or, > alternatively, accept a one-shot manual conversation of the manpages? Not more so than interacting with them on GitHub issues or PRs myself. They're fairly responsive there, though! I'd rather if you filed an issue/PR directly, however, to avoid playing a game of telephone :) Thanks! Faidon
