On Sat, 19 Nov 2016, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 19.11.2016 07:40, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Source: gcc-5 > > Version: 5.4.1-3 > > Severity: serious > > Tags: stretch sid > > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20161118 qa-ftbfs > > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > > > Hi, > > > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on > > amd64. > > > > Relevant part (hopefully): > > no, not the relevant part (you get it by searching for "unfinished": > > The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem. > Makefile:1077: recipe for target 'reload1.o' failed > make[5]: *** [reload1.o] Error 1 > make[5]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > closing, that's an issue with the environment.
It's unlikely a hardware problem because the build was made in a virtual machine and the build was tried twice. This is written in the bug report itself. This is a lot more likely to be a bug which happens randomly, for example, a bug in the Makefile. Such bugs *do* exist, just see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841096 for a very simple example. In this case, there is absolutely zero evidence that it's a hardware problem and not a bug which happens randomly. Do you always close bugs which happen randomly just because you can't reproduce them yourself, or can you acknowledge the fact that not all packages either always build or always fail? (I can give a lot more examples of packages which fail to build randomly if you are interested). Thanks.
