peter green <plugw...@p10link.net> writes: > Is this really THAT big a deal? Is it really worth making dubious > changes to build dependencies (gcc in this case but a similar saga is > going on with dash) to temporarlly hide (and therefore make harder to > fix) FTBFS bugs that are usually trivial to fix in the package that > suffers from them (worst case you can just change the cflags in this > case or set CONFIG_SHELL in the dash/configure case.
I'm not sure. My personal inclination for my own packages would be along the lines you describe: just let them FTBFS and have people fix them. I wouldn't have minded that for my own packages, although it would have given this specific issue a bit more urgency than it felt like it deserved (but then I don't use -Werror for exactly that reason). But I'm also not on the release team, and I can imagine adding a couple hundred new FTBFS problems in the middle of transitions could have really ruined their week. It's problematic enough right now that GCC 4.6 seems to be struggling on armel; I have two packages that currently can't build due to internal compiler errors in armel. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y61ycx43....@windlord.stanford.edu
