On 08.03.2017 01:01, Santiago Vila wrote: > severity 854494 serious > thanks > > Dear maintainer: > > I expected a general guideline from Release Managers regarding > packages which FTBFS randomly like this one, but that will most surely > not happen for stretch. > > So, the only guideline I have left is the one expressed by Julien > Cristau (one of the RMs) in Bug #844264: > > "if the failure rate is low enough I think a lower severity can make > sense" > > I posted a list of bugs which FTBFS more than 10% of the time and > several people agreed on -devel that they should be serious and > maintainers should ask for stretch-ignore tag in case the bug should > not be RC (most bugs are about failing tests so this should not be > needed in general). > > In the latest tests I made, this package fails for me more than 61% of > the time, and it also fails (randomly) in the reproducible builds > autobuilders: > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/execnet.html > > (I think this addresses the comment made here by Rebecca: Most probably > the failures do not have anything to do with my machines being > single-CPU, as the reproducible builds autobuilders are multi-core). > > This may affect any user trying to build this package (for example, > after making a change), our downstreams, and the Security Team once > that stretch is stable. > > For this reason I'm raising this to serious. > > Sorry for the long explanation. > > Thanks.
... that's o.k. with me. Good work with those "randomly failing" test builds. DS -- 4096R/DF5182C8 Debian Developer (sten...@debian.org) http://www.danielstender.com/
