On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:13:55PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > IMHO, buildds need to be able to build the packages at any given time, > which means they should always succeed.
I agree that they should. I'm just saying that this is not the traditional threshold for release criticality and I'm not aware that this has changed. > So in some sense, I'm already applying not the policy which I believe > is the correct one (packages should build with 100% probability), but > the unwritten policy that packages should autobuild with "very high > probability", it's just that the probability of this package in > particular is certainly too low for what I would consider reasonable > (as I managed to get failed logs in reproducible builds and my own > autobuilder). This was not clear from your earlier mail, which I read as unconditionally requiring 100% success probability. Thank you for the clarification. > Please note that I'm not even asking that the .deb package is always > the same (that would be the goal of the reproducible builds project) I'm > just saying that package building should not be a lottery. I'm well aware of the difference, thank you very much. -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org