Re: status of buildds?
Martin Michlmayr <email@example.com> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-03-16 09:59]:
> > If the information in the Developers' Reference is no longer
> > correct, then fix it
> Can you please give a specific section so we know what information
> you're talking about exactly.
Section 5.10.2. Note that this doesn't apply to "random people" but
is clear that porters have this responsibility.
I don't think this is wrong; I think it's right.
I would support a move to source-only uploads, btw, but as long as we
haven't, 5.10.2 is right.
> So given that I was a) not responding to you and b) not commenting on
> your S/390 case, so why do you think it's necessary to point out that
> what I said doesn't apply to your example when I quite clearly said I
> was not talking about that example?
Because other people reading the thread might well misunderstand that
I'm making a narrower point. At least three people have done so,
saying that my claim that s390 porters can fix their own house and
build packages is contradicted by unrelated cases involving
non-developers, or people acting against the wishes of the porting