> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, at 14:46, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 02:28:08PM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > It's not how important they seem to *me*, but to the release team. > > > The FTBFS on non-release archs are not "serious" > > > > I don't see that here: > > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities It pretty clearly says:
| serious; is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates | a "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's or | release manager's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. Problems on non-release archs cannot make a package unsuitable for release by definition. It is ok not to know this, but it is not ok to not accept this once you are told about it. > > > > Why you break this so easily? > > > > (btw, how such archs could get release status if you refuse to assist > > > > them?). > > > > > > This is a breakage that was caused by libtool 2.4.6-0.1 upload. > > > ... > > > And as you can see in #814271, I fixed this bug within one week when it > > > was reported. So please consider your words. > > > > Maybe. But to check that - package must be in an installable state > > on this arch. Otherwise, we can't be sure. Right, you can reopen that then. Alternatively, you can rebuild the Build-Depends chain yourself to check if you don't want to wait. But it is not the maintainer's duty to chase this down, unless there is a direct problem with their package. In this case, php7.0 is in state BD-Uninstallable so this is a porter/buildd-admin problem. Michael
