On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 10:04 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > The package reportedly fails in one of the tests. The failing test > > log > > snippet is below: > > It builds for me and builds on the buildds, so meh, this is not > release > critical. >
Yes. Indeed. For any build environment where the repositories are set proper, it does build. I verified it in my debspawn build environment and it builds proper. > Why does reproducible build builders build without main in their > sources.list? This does not seem to make a lot of sense. > Not just reproducible builds but many others too. Gitlab runners, Open Build Service, Reproducible Builds and probably many more. Any environment which is, on-the-fly created from scratch, doesn't have the repository information. I just checked on my machine and no package claims ownership of `/etc/apt/sources.list`. > Sure, you can argue that the tests should not depend on main being > enabled in your hosts sources.list, but in practice this is not > something that should fail. If you really have the dependency on that data, it would be better to check and generate one, if not available. The assumption that the repository information is available at hand in all the build environment is certainly not correct. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
