Re: armel port status report
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:12:14PM +0000, Martin Guy wrote:
> I don't see rebuilding yet another version of all the various gcc's as
> being more important than building a package that is absent from the
> archive.
If you don't understand how debian testing and thus release works, don't
try telling me what's important and what isn't.
> 1) identify the packages that are missing but known to work on armel,
> and prioritoze them on the buildds.
I don't need you for that. I need buildd time for that. Those packages
*will* get built eventually.
> 2) After that, next greatest profit is to tackle the unfortunate
> practice of listing Architectures in the "Binary" section of each
> source packages' control file, which means that an unknown number of
> packages appear to build on armel, but do not in fact produce any
> binary packages (or omit some).
For metrics used or release, it does not matter. However, it's annoying
for endusers, so they should be fixed at some point.
Fixing ten packages that don't build on armel to build is more usefull
time spent than using buildd trickery to get a handful of packages build
a month before they would get built automatically.
Reply to: