Re: buildd administration
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't
> (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that
> fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed as a supported arch in
> the source and ensuring it does not incorrectly indicate a known
> broken build is successful as it did in the past
> (c) informing ftpmaster that the build currently in the archive is
> broken by filing a bug requesting the broken build be removed
> (you know, communicating with people)
> (d) downgrading the bug so that it is not incorrectly listed as
> a RC issue that the RM and QA teams have to attend to
> (e) as maintainer, work with upstream and porters to fix the
> downgraded but still open bug we were just talking about
I disagree with this. It is an RC issue, because it is an issue that
I, as the package maintainer, believe is sufficiently important that
it should block the package from entry into testing until resolved.
>> (Actually, you have six open RC bugs, because you "maintain" packages
>> by ignoring them and relying on others to fix your bugs for you, and
>> then not acknowleding the NMUs. I fail to see how this is better.)
> There is nothing wrong with NMUs. Honestly, if you fail to see how a
> bug fixed in an NMU is better than an open RC bug and a package in the
> archive that doesn't work at all, I don't understand how you passed n-m.
scm does, in fact, work. What makes you think the contrary?
You simply don't have the facts.