Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?
Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 19:31, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > If Robert is such an incompetent developer as some people say and the
> > > package does not build on the 11 different architectures, then the
> > > package will not propagate to testing and the world will be safe from
> > > the disaster.
> > You misunderstand how testing works.
> > If a *new* package doesn't build on some arch, it won't be held up from
> > testing because of it.
> > It's only when an *existing* package that *previously* built on some arch, and
> > now it doesn't, that testing will ignore it.
> Given that we know Linux does in fact compile and run on all those
> architectures (by virtue of the fact we have them in the first place), I
We know vanilla doesn't.
> think it would be fair to insist that Robert's package do the same
> before it propagates to testing. He's stated numerous times that the
> porting is just packaging work and that he's capable of doing it.
> I am not sure of the best technical way to make this happen, though.
> Joe Wreschnig <email@example.com>