Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:39:26PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > > As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's
> > > > applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's request.
> > > As someone who has recently looked at and fixed many problems, I must say
> > > the release team has done m68k no service by doing this and actually
> > > sabotaged m68k in its ability to catch up again.
> > > Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in
> > > many cases maintainer simply don't care about m68k support. I often have
> > > to bug people to get them to release a fixed package.
> > I suggest you read section 5.10 of the developers reference, and do
> > porter/non-maintainer source uploads if you think it's holding up things
> > and the maintainer isn't very responsive.
> Would the 0 day NMU policy apply to m68k specific bugs ? At least this
> would allow porter/non-maintainer source uploads.
The 0-day NMU policy promulgated by the release team has as its express
purpose to improve the release-readiness of testing, so m68k-specific fixes
wouldn't be covered by this. But porters are allowed to do NMUs on their
own authority, and I know that some porters have done 0-day NMUs when they
considered it necessary.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.