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

Re: Arch-specific bugs [was: Canonical and Debian]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:11:05PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 07 juin 2005 à 02:12 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > Oh, you'll also note that the traditional "slow" architectures (mips,
> > mipsel, m68k, arm) aren't on this "problems" list.  That's because a *lot*
> > of effort has been put into providing sufficient parallelization for each
> > architecture; the ongoing cost to *maintain* these parallel buildds is
> > higher than to maintain a single buildd, and given that each of arm, mips,
> > and mipsel have had instances over the past year where they were
> > short-handed, I don't know how realistic it is to expect that they'll stay
> > caught up through etch's lifetime.
> This isn't fair. Instead of throwing out these arches, why not let them
> in the current state while there's some effort to maintain them, and if
> these efforts actually slow down, then drop the architecture at that
> moment?

I think the effect of "your arch is now dead because it didn't keep up for
the last little while" warning might be a little worse than "we don't
consider your arch to be maintainable long-term to the same standard as the
rest of Debian, let's work out to what level we can support it".

> > The second most significant area of concern, for me, is having people being
> > proactive about dealing with per-architecture build failures.  There's no
> > particular reason that should be the buildd admins' or the release team's
> > area of responsibility, either; all it requires is people who know what
> > they're doing to file sensible bug reports without gratuitously duplicating
> > efforts, and people who know the architectures to help the maintainers sort
> > out bugs.
> I agree. This is the maintainers' duty, not the release team's. And if
> the problem is too complicated to solve for the maintainer, someone
> willing to support the architecture has to help. If such a person cannot
> be found, this is a sign the architecture cannot be supported in Debian.

This is tricky to assign "blame" for, though.  I've only had one (positive,
as it turned out) experience with contacting a porter team for assistance
with an arch-specific bug, but I can easily see situations where it's likely
to be difficult to work out who is "at fault".

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: