> On Mar 4, 2024, at 3:37 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:52:07AM -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
>> Why would these become "wishlist" bugs as opposed to actual reproducibility
>> bugs
>> that deserve fixing, just because one server at Debian no longer invokes this
>> bug
On 2024-03-04, John Gilmore wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> > > to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them
>> > > makes sense, given buildd.debian.org now normalizes them.
>
> James Addison via rb-general wrote:
>> Ok, thank you both. A number of these bugs are
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:52:07AM -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
> Why would these become "wishlist" bugs as opposed to actual reproducibility
> bugs
> that deserve fixing, just because one server at Debian no longer invokes this
> bug because it always uses the same build directory?
because it's
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> > > to make it easier to debug other issues, although deprioritizing them
> > > makes sense, given buildd.debian.org now normalizes them.
James Addison via rb-general wrote:
> Ok, thank you both. A number of these bugs are currently recorded at severity
> level
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 12:06, Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
> > There are real-world build path issues, and while it is possible to work
> > around them in various ways, I think they are still issues worth fixing
> > to make it easier to debug other issues, although
Hi Chris, Vagrant,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 17:44, Vagrant Cascadian
wrote:
>
> On 2024-02-27, Chris Lamb wrote:
> >> * Update reprotest to handle a single-disabled-varations-value as a
> >> special case - treating it as vary and/or emitting a warning.
>
> Well, I would broaden this to include
