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

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:44:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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.

Support's a matter of many things. One of those is ensuring you don't
have RC bugs. 

If a package is failing to build or to function on some architecture,
your job as that package's maintainer is see if it can be fixed (talking
to porters and/or upstream if it's beyond your skills), and if it can't
be fixed trivially, to note that it's not currently supported on that
architecture by both ensuring that non-working packages fail to build
(by editing the Architecture: line or adding appropriate test suites), and
passing that information on to others. In this case that means not having
a control file that explicitly declares s390 is a supported architecture,
and filing a bug against ftp.debian.org indicating that the s390 build
is broken and should be removed. That then warrants downgrading the s390
FTBFS bugs to important or wishlist.

As far as transparency goes; I'll note you didn't add anything to either
bug report indicating you're working with upstream. It's the silence
and the uncertainty over whether anything's actually being done to fix
anything that's the real issue, you know?

> >> 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.  

RC bugs need to be fixed as a matter of *urgency*, not over a matter of

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

I don't believe I have any open RC bugs, or any open FTBFS bugs, so
I don't see the relevance. But hey, if it'll make you feel better to
convince yourself that it's everyone else's fault and there's nothing
you can do, go ahead.

> Moreover, please notice how despite a hostile and uncomprehending
> question, 

It's amazing how it's always "hostile and uncomprehending" when it's
you that's being questioned, yet when you're doing the questioning they
tend consistently towards "concerned and incisive".

Given your apparent discomfort with that question, perhaps you'd care
to consider how much more "hostile and uncomprehending" it might seem
if instead of making the question as part of a conversation between us,
I'd instead posted to d-d-a about it, or simply raised it as a general
conversation piece about how people in your position should be reviewed
for replacement as a matter of urgency.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: