Re: Bug#27823: proftpd: non-maintainer upload (alpha) diffs
Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
> James Troup wrote:
> > They don't compile from freshly unpacked source.
>
> How odd. Other maintainer must work substantially differently than I, then.
If you're building foobar 1.1-3, do you really recompile from a
freshly unpacked foobar_1.1-3.dsc?
> > Another thing is that i386 maintainers _won't_ notice is two of our
> > most common problems: YAFHIC386 in debian/control's Architecture and
> > debian/files not being removed during debian/rules clean.
>
> I can see the first, but I've certianly ran into the second before I
> modified debhelper to delete debian/files.
debian/files being present in freshly unpacked source is rarely a
problem on i386; it's *always* a problem on non-i386.
[ ... ]
> Why does a binary-only NMU give you the right to skip waiting, while
> a normal NMU does not? Why are they different?
Because I'm not forcing my changes on anyone but the architecture I'm
uploading for. If I'm wrong in some drastic way, only m68k suffers.
You're also forgetting the vast majority of our fixes fall into two
categories:
1) Fixing lame packaging bugs.
2) Portability fixes.
In both cases it's hard for a maintainer to turn round and say, "No,
your fix is wrong, I wanted the package to be unbuildable from source"
or "No, get some real hardware, I don't want this package to be
portable", or "No, that's not the right fix for $ARCH, you should do
this instead".
> Binary-only and normal NMU's are the same thing,
No they're not. Why do you insist on this obvious falsehood?
[ ... ]
> Do you want the ports to remain forever second class citizens, or do you
> want them to eventually mature to be equal with i386?
Will you please get off your high horse and stop being so incredibly
condescending? It doesn't help in anyway whatsoever and without some
facts to back up your anti-non-i386 rants, it's really rather
pointless. What exactly makes us second class citizens (your wishes
aside)?
> > All ports needs to make a lot of changes because so many source
> > packages are broken. It's got little or nothing to do with the
> > newness of the port (if you look at the {binary-,}NMU's and bug
> > reports, they aren't predominantly from the new ports, but rather the
> > older ones (m68k && alpha)).
>
> Broken source package has nothing to do with a port at all.
Of course they bloody do; we have to build them. And the breakage I'm
talking about, is the sort of breakage which doesn't show up for 99.5%
of i386/source maintainers.
> > Eh? Define ``standard'', please? I rather hope you don't mean "what
> > i386 uses".
>
> I mean that we should converge on using the same build environment and build
> mechanisms (and NMU mechanisms) for all architectures, and until we do, the
> ports are going to remain second class citizens.
Ehm, so all the architectures using glibc 2.1 are second class
citizens? If I didn't know better, I'd think you were just using this
issue as an excuse to vent some anti-non-i386 feelings you seem to
have.
--
James
Reply to: