Romain Francoise wrote: > [...] the burden of keeping it working there will fall on me. kfreebsd not being a release architecture any more, means any future FTBFS shouldn't stall testing migrations, at least. If udeb-blocks are ever an issue, I imagine KiBi could allow an exception for a udeb that is kfreebsd-any. > don't have the patience to deal with non-working or dog-slow> > porterboxes to fix issues You didn't even mention that to debian-bsd@. You only complained about it in an unrelated bug report that had not been Cc'd to kfreebsd porters at all; and grumbled about it on Twitter. Now you mention it again without actually knowing if the buildds are fixed or not. They did get updated for jessie and have been converted to virtio. If they still prove to be slow or awkward, would you please write a separate mail to debian-bsd@ and not again complain about it in an unrelated bug report. > Let me also state that NMUing a package without warning for a wishlist > bug, even to DELAYED, is considered rude in my book. It came as a surprise to me too that Mike is pursuing this, but I am glad he is willing to do the work, especially if you say that you are not. After 7+ months in the BTS with patch, a porter NMU delayed for 10 more days is IMHO quite justified at this point. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#porter-guidelines | 5.10.2.2. When to do a source NMU if you are a porter | [...] the acceptable waiting period — the time between when the bug | is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven | days for porters working on the unstable distribution. This period | can be shortened if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on | the porting effort" Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain steven@pyro.eu.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature