On Feb 18, Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> wrote: > Again, given the scale, Debian can not expect that the package > maintainers are going to contact each upstream and send a patch. We are > not paid for that. We are not paid for anything at all, to be fair... I think that we are expected to forward most bugs to upstreams.
> On the other hand, we also rely on "the ecosystem" to do the work by > themselves so that the packages eventually start to build fine with GCC > 15 them after we upgrade them to newer upstream versions. But who will In my case, 4 of the bugs that I received were for retrocomputing-level packages which has not had releases in years or decades. The other 4 are all related to Varnish, and indeed if I procrastinate enough then I expect that they will be solved upstream without any involvement on my part. > If we want to have stats and know what is the percentage of our pakcages > that adopted GCC 15 compatibility at a given point of time, mass > rebuilds are enough. Salsa CI also comes to the mind. But before we I think that adding a GCC 15 build to the standard Salsa CI pipeline would have been a nicer early warning than a MBF. Maybe this could be considered by the time GCC 16 will start getting ready to be useful? -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
