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://release.debian.org/stretch/rc_policy.txt , specifically section 4. A regression in building on a release architecture is RC. If the package has never built on a particular architecture, or the failure occurs on a non-release architecture, the issue is conventionally considered to be of important severity. [...] > IMO it is up to the maintainer's decision to fix the FTBFS here, or to > remove the failing archs from Debian to let the package pass to testing. It is. Until the packages are removed, however, the fact that they fail to build remains a release-critical issue. > So, if you not oppose to, I would lower the severity and make it non-RC. Even if Peter doesn't, I oppose it. The bug *is* RC. Regards, Adam
