Hi Lucas, Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.
On 17-04-2025 09:58, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
In general: when mass-filing bugs, I try hard to find the right balance between the time spent filing bugs, and the amount of errors I make.
I totally recognize that as I'm also filing a huge amount of QA bugs.
the fact that the test suite fails on i386 exists independently from the severity assigned to that fact by the release team. Of course we don't need to track all "facts" in a bug tracker, but that one sounds useful enough to be tracked.
I agree. I was mostly discussing the severity indeed. I was just wondering (but missed to mention that explicitly in my reply) how hard or easy it would be to warn you before filing that this issue might be due to memory issues and hence file it as important or add additional text to the template. Maybe a paragraph about testing on i386 could be added, mentioning this explicitly? (this == i386 being low on memory space and downgrading is ok if maintainers think that's the right thing to do. The latter is of course always true, but I think some maintainers might be reluctant and see you as an authority on this matter).
Regarding the case of arch:all build failures on i386, I think they are worth reporting to identify that a package that is declared to work on all architectures does not work on i386 (or does not completely work on i386). Even if we don't have a great way to translate that to packages relationships (maybe we should generalize something like Depends: unsupported-architecture [i386]).
Or Build-Depends? For if the package works, but the build doesn't.
So, unless you ask me to stop doing so, I will continue to file such bugs; I will file them as severity:serious by default
Agree. Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
