Proposed package blocking due to FTBFS

[Bastien Nocera]

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 00:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> > And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
> > random bot-driven bugs.
> 
> every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an actual
> person. They have to be sufficiently narked about the app crashing (and
> it really must have crashed) to click through a rather convoluted
> process (the first time, anyway) to send in a report.

Given the time it takes triage them, compared to how long it takes to
file them, I'm not sure it's a win for us.

> so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
> by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to
> build it and so encountered the bug. Where does it fail to meet your
> criteria?

It's a file'n'dump bug. There's no one that actually looked at the bugs
to try and analyse them, nobody to offer a reminder in the bugs (they
were filed and left untouched).

> I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for
> FTBFS, but the argument can clearly be made; being self-hosting is
> obviously important for an F/OSS project. At some point it devolves into
> Stallmanite wankery about whether you can flash your mouse, but where
> exactly we should draw the line isn't a slam-dunk :)

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The signal to noise
ratio in the RH bugzilla is far too low to be anything useful, and
piling another bug on top of other bugs, with no reminder apart from
this mail is rude.

FWIW, the bug I found in gnokii was really a bug in pcsc which just
removed a enum member without bumping soname, thus breaking API, and
possibly ABI. I should have received an automated mail about broken
dependencies, and not be having discussions about the quality of our
bugzilla.