Control: clone -1 -2 Control: retitle -2 watcher FTBFS in some timezones Control: severity -1 serious
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 03:35:40PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:20:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:38:47PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > >... > > > I see you have downgraded this from serious, but Release Policy says > > > packages must build without failure. Could you please tell me > > > in which sense this: > > > > > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/watcher.html > > > > > > is not a failure? > > > > This error in reproducible looks pretty different (it is also not a hang) > > from what you reported. > > Ok, you mean I should have filed two different bugs? Well, maybe. > Can you file a bug for the failure in reproducible-builds? I'm cloning a bug for this. > I'll rephrase my question, then: In which way a hang is not a build > failure and therefore worthy of serious severity? My main point was that your hang and the FTBFS in reproducible look completely unrelated. > > In any case it would be good if the package would be uploaded source-only, > > since this would have made it easy to see whether it also fails on the > > buildds. > > Yes, I fully agree, and I have been asking him to do this for a long > time already. This might even have cought your problem due to: On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:02:13AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Though one thing: I had to break the run of unit tests into multiple > runs, otherwise it would hang. So it's porbable that there's a kind of > race condition between the tests. So this should have something to do > with parallelism when running the tests. Raising back to serious since this strongly suggests the package wouldn't build on the buildds. > Thanks. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
