Re: Package flow scenarios

[Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>]

david@schmitt.edv-bus.at (David Schmitt) writes:

>>     4.2) the package fails to build. This used to be a RC critical FTBFS,
>> but is not so anymore. The porter are responsible for fixing the bug and
>> uploading a fixed package to unstable, as they do now.
>
> Wouldn't it be better: "The porter are responsible for fixing the bug and 
> supplying a patch?" Of course, in the case of unresponsive maintainers, there
> is always the possibility of an NMU, but this shouldn't be the norm - not 
> even with tier-2 arches.

While porters can often serve up a patch for a truly architecture-specific 
build problem, sometimes a porter and the maintainer of a package need to 
collaborate to bring a build problem to closure.  This can be particularly
true if the package is complex, or the upstream change is substantial.  In
those cases, the package maintainer and upstream may be able to understand
the issue and deliver a fix much faster than "a porter" who might know nothing
about that application.

My point is simply that portability and quality are shared responsibilities 
for all of us, not something we can arbitrarily assign to "someone else" and 
still expect to achieve our goals as a community.

Bdale