Re: Bug Reporting system
> James Troup wrote:
> >
> > Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> >
> > > My proposal is to add an architecture field to the maintainer and
> > > having one maintainer for each architecture.
My proposal is to keep things as they are now, or even stronger:
A maintainer for package foo is the maintainer of the _source_
package foo, and whoever compiles that package for the various
architectures should not get any bugs at all.
Really, if package foo works for i386, but fails on Alpha, that still
is a bug in the _source_ of package foo, and it is thus the job
of the _source_ maintainer of pacakge foo to change it.
Or do you also intend to have one source maintainer for every
architecture? I hope not!
Of cource, if I find a bugreport on my package bar that apparently
only is triggered on Alpha systems, I'll try to get in touch with
someone who has actually got an alpha. He then may look into the
problem, and possibly send me a patch for the problem (or tell
me "forward to upstream maintainer", if he cannot find it).
But as there is only one _sourece_ package bar, there should also
be one maintainer who makes changes to that source. Having n maintainers
who maintain the same source seems very strange.
--
joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: