[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org> writes:
>> 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..

I wouldn't call it getting along. It was a struggel all last year.

Do I have to remind you of the dpkg saga? Patches by the amd64 team
were ignored for ages, then added to cvs, replaced for the unstable
upload, the (one of them) maintainer then requested every amd64 porter
to sign a mail to revert the patch to what was submitted, after that
he still refused to revert the patch and the CTTE had to be called to
resolve the issue which it did in favour of the amd64 team.

Or look in the BTS for the still open amd64 bugs with patches ranging
100, 200 and I think even over 300 days back. Some packages got over 5
uploads to unstable with the amd64 patch "Add amd64 to Architecture
line in debian/control" or "update configure script" being ignored.

As it is we can't even build CDs from Debian sources without someone
NMUing syslinux for us first.

It is true that many people were very helpfull but also some very
stubborn and some people just didn't care. The syslinux thingy is
one of 5 issues left that require a patch in sarge. Everything else
has been either fixed during the last year or will (and can without
too loud screams) be excluded.

Special thanks go to the glibc and gcc maintainers for allowing
multiarch support into sarge enabling 64bit kernels for sarge i386 and
32bit support for amd64.


Reply to: