This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Bugzilla and build bugs
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:00:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: Bugzilla and build bugs
- Authentication-results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of patofiero@gmail.com designates 10.236.165.1 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=patofiero@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=patofiero@gmail.com
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202182129060.6744@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><201202182151.49036.vapier@gentoo.org>
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 18 February 2012 16:44:41 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> I don't think this is a good practice; build bugs are bugs much like other
>> bugs, which may be valid or user error and may or may not have sufficient
>> information when first reported; they should be treated like other bugs.
>
> i agree completely
I also agree completely.
>> It probably makes sense to have a new component "build" for problems
>> building glibc or reports that it's completely broken in a particular
>> configuration. ?For failures of particular testcases in the testsuite, I
>> think existing components such as "libc" and "ports" are more appropriate.
>
> sounds reasonable
I agree. I'll be adding "build" to the glibc product component list soon.
Cheers,
Carlos.