On 2023-01-28 21:56:23 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > El 28/1/23 a las 20:44, Sebastian Ramacher escribió: > > On 2023-01-28 15:03:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > ... > > > > * Those bugs are RC by definition and have been for a long time. > > > > ... > > > > > > Please provide a pointer where a release team member has said so > > > explicitly in recent years. > > > > > > In my experience they are usually saying that FTBFS that do not happen > > > on the buildds of release architectures are usually not RC. > > > > Indeed. We require that packages are buildable on the buildds. If they > > don't and they built before, they are RC buggy. For all other FTBFS > > bugs, please use severity important at most. > > So: What am I supposed to do when some maintainer rejects that this is a bug > at all and closes the bug? (See #1027364 for an example).
As with all mass bug filings, discuss the issue first on debian-devel. See developer's reference 7.1.1. This discussion could have both answered the questions whther RC severity is appropriate for this type of bug and whether it's a bug at all. > I believe Adam Borowski just does not understand the current build essential > definition. Could somebody please explain it to him? I tried and failed. This is already covered in another subthread. But again, this could have been avoided by following dev ref. > Also: What I am supposed to do when some maintainer marks the bugs as > "unreproducible"? > I think that's completely missing the point on what's the meaning of > unreproducible. That's a completly different topic than RC severity. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
