On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:01:07 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 01:06:15PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> > >> > Sorry, but I disagree here. I don't think it is reasonable to expect >> > porters to check for build failures in general, especially as many of >> > them just happen because of generic maintainer errors and >> > cross-architectures. >> >> I'm not saying that porters should check for build failures in general. >> >> If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built >> fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect >> to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)? > > I think to have a useful discussion we need to start with the different > kind of failures we can actually see that are arch dependend. Some of > those shows up on only 1 or 2 arches, some show up on all but 1 or 2 > arches:
<snip> > 7) Packages that trigger arch specific toolchain, libc or kernel > bugs. > 8) Packages that themself work properly but use a library or > program that has a problem. I think some clarification needs to be done for these types of errors. I sometimes get a (serious) bug reported against one of my packages because: 1. python errored out with a glibc-detected error 2. gcc broke in some way (ICE, error -11, error -4) 3. swig failed with error -10 None of these are my package's fault. I wonder if reassigning to the program erroring out is the right thing to do. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/j3kde0$oud$1...@dough.gmane.org
