tags 1089970 ftbfs severity 1032439 serious thanks On 28/04/26 8:34 pm, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hi, > >> On 28/04/26 12:50 pm, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: >>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=sia&suite=sid >> >> I think one should avoid spending time on this one; the optimal path >> for this package is not newcomer issue. >> >> More context in: >> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-go/2024/12/msg00070.html >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1089970 > > Thanks for the info. If you file a bug about the build failures with > the appropriate headers and tags the issues and suggestion to not fix > them can be found directly from the build result page. > > (See table below build results at > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=badger&suite=sid as > example, and the bug for the tags)
Should be done now. Also, while we are at it, I see that the build failures you shared are on not-very-usual archs (loong, riscv64 etc ...). I would not call arch-specific FTBFS as newcomer task at all. Some of these actually (for example badger) look difficult to wade through. For most cases, even to repro it, one would either need a guest account to access porter boxes or use sbuild+qemu to test it. Furthermore, fixing arch-specific FTBFS would need more knowledge and experience to diagnose architecture specific stuff. Even now, after being a DD for a few years, I feel some arch-specific issues very difficult to debug at times, and I often find that I am not the only one (for example, #1112166). So I would not call it as a good starting point to be honest. Probably starting with simple to debug and fix build failures (on all arches) is a good point to start contributing. But, YMMV, ofcourse.
