Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:19:27AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important
> > resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which is the only way
> > to get lazy maintainers moving is being taken away.
> >
>
> That's an awfully pessimistic view. All porters need is some sort of
> leverage that allows them to force maintainers to accept or deal w/
> their patches; perhaps some QA team members who will NMU
> poorly-maintained packages on behalf of porters? The amd64 crew seems to
> be getting along ok w/out having their FTBFS bugs considered RC..
The developers reference has a significant piece of text about porting.
It includes NMU possibilities (NMU's are *always* a possibility to work
around "lazy" maintainers, recall that the Social Contract explicitely
mentions you can never demand work from anyone).
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-porting
Note that porter patches for kFreeBSD and amd64 so far seem, as far as I
can see, to be relatively swiftly applied anyway by maintainers, despite
those patches not being RC either. This suggests to me that also in the
future with patches for SCC architectures, this should normally not be
a problem, and of course, NMU's are possible otherwise.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: