On 05/31/2007 08:20 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 17:03 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote: >>> 1. A spurious build or test failure which happens on all arches >>> but intermittently. >>> 2. A simple error introduced in the package update. >>> 3. Something 'hard' which the arch team need to look into. >>> 4. A compiler bug. >> OK, for is possible sure, but doesn't happen quite often hopefully. > > You mean that #4 is possible but shouldn't happen often? That's true at > the moment but once we start pulling in new architectures it could > happen more often. Yes, of course. You're totally right... There are enough bugs in the 'other archs'... > We should make sure that it's relatively easy for a package maintainer > to see a compiler failure, and just say "Don't Care" and leave it for > the arch maintainer to deal with (although the more conscientious > package maintainers would actually file the compiler bug with test case > for themselves). Being able to file a bug and then push a button for > 'release the build anyway' seems not to be too much of an imposition. > > In fact, _other_ than compiler bugs, I suspect that the _majority_ of > bugs which just happen to kill one build but not others may well be > generic bugs which are sensitive to timing or other criteria, and not > really arch-specific at all. Which is why it's so irresponsible to let > partially-failed builds make it through to the repo without _any_ > interaction from the maintainer at all. We will see. :-) -of -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
