Hi,
On 05/05/25 at 21:53 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió:
> > [...]
>
> Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead
> and announce a MBF.
>
> May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs?
> Machines with 8 CPUs only? (I ask because I found more than 800
> packages with makefile issues triggered by make --shuffle,
> using machines with 1 and 2 CPUs).
Yes, 8 cores. I looked at the differences between your results and
mine, and while I did not look at all packages that failed for you but
are not included in my list of 511 packages, I identified the following
causes for differences, order by decreasing impact in the small sample I
checked:
- I did not check packages that are not currently in testing.
- I excluded packages that FTBFS even without --shuffle.
- some packages failed for you for other reasons, but now build fine
even with --shuffle.
- I excluded packages that FTBFS even with --shuffle=none (but build
fine without --shuffle). Examples are packages that use bmake
(BSD make), such as csh. What happens is that GNU Make sets MAKEFLAGS
to --shuffle, which bmake does not understand.
> > I'd rather do the bug submitting now to avoid refreshing build results
> > later, but I agree that this is not release-critical material of course,
> > so I can also wait until after the trixie release.
>
> Debian Policy does not say "Makefiles should be correct", but I think
> that has always been implicit. The GPL speaks about Makefiles as an integral
> part of source code ("plus the scripts used to control compilation
> and installation of the executable" in GPL-2).
>
> So, I would say this is a normal bug.
I'm not going to argue about 'normal' vs 'minor'.
Lucas
