On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:06:53AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hello everybody, > > pardon me but I do not see the GCC mass bug filing being discussed on > this list before it was started. > > Give the scale if build failure (hundreds of failures for the Debian Med > packaging team for instance), I want to question if the MBF is > premature. What other information do we get apart from "most upstreams > are not ready" ? > > 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. > > 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 > close the hundreds of bugs? I mean, query the BTS, get a bug number, > paste it in a changelog, etc, just to convey information about a change > that did not happen in Debian ? We are not paid for that. > > 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 > reach the point that we start to track release blockers, I question if > mass bug filings are a tool that makes the best use of our volunteer > time?
I don't understand the reason for alarm, given that: 1) the bugs were not filed as release-critical, so it has no impact on the release state of your package. 2) The bugs reports explicitly mention that the bugs are not targeted at trixie. I don't think that "OMG my packages have bugs and I need to fix them all NOW" is a useful attitude, and nobody in their right mind should expect this of any maintainer. Take it easy.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
