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

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

>> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371.  In fact, scm has *never*
>> supported s390; 
>        scm |    5d9-4.1 |      unstable | s390

And yet, it didn't actually run successfully on s390.  Support is not
just a matter of compiling.

>> when I took over maintenance of the package I opened
>> the bugs so that it could be more effectively tracked.
> RC bugs need to be *fixed*, not merely tracked.

Yes, and I'm working with upstream.  Supporting scheme on these
architectures is very tricky, because it needs to copy the stack and
do all kinds of cleverness, and Aubrey didn't have the hardware to do
it.  It cannot be done through generic code.  My involvement has been
to work on the porting itself, and more importantly, to hook Aubrey up
with the Debian porters in the hope of working on the problems and
improving support.  Worst case, I'll have to decide that s390 should
be removed from the supported list, but I'm not giving up yet.

Before you scold me further about the ONE release-critical bug in
packages I maintain, shall we start examining yours?

Moreover, please notice how despite a hostile and uncomprehending
question, I have answered your question as fully and completely as I
can.  I did not say, "Anthony is being a jerk, so I will ignore him."
I did not say, "From now on, I'll ignore Anthony."

Now, you'll be happy to do the same, right?


Reply to: