On 2016-10-16 18:38, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On 16.10.2016 18:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on
> > which they are supported. Packages must be supported on as many
> > architectures as is reasonably possible. Pac
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 18:38:20 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On 16.10.2016 18:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on
> > which they are supported. Packages must be supported on as many
> > architectures as is reas
Hi Julien,
On 16.10.2016 18:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on
> which they are supported. Packages must be supported on as many
> architectures as is reasonably possible. Packages are assumed to
> be supported on all
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 18:25 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> could you explain why you think this is of severity "serious"? In my
> opinion, FTBFS should be "important" as long as there is at least one
> useful architecture.
Your opinion is not consistent with RC bug policy. See
https:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 18:25:31 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> could you explain why you think this is of severity "serious"? In my
> opinion, FTBFS should be "important" as long as there is at least one
> useful architecture.
>
No, that's not how it works.
https://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_
Hi Peter,
could you explain why you think this is of severity "serious"? In my
opinion, FTBFS should be "important" as long as there is at least one
useful architecture.
The definition for important is:
"a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without
rendering it completel
6 matches
Mail list logo
