Re: Packages getting marked not-for-us
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Petter Reinholdtsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > [Matthew Johnson]
>> >> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
>> >> my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
>> >> anyone else either...
>> > I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a porter
>> > flag a package as NFU on a given architecture, he should be required
>> > to file a removal request for the binaries on that architecture too,
>> > and CC the package maintainer to let the maintainer know about the
>> > decision.
>> > Silently flagging packages as NFU on a given architecture do not seem
>> > like a good idea, and expecting the maintainer to ask for removal
>> > without letting the maintainer know that the porter refuses to build a
>> > given package can only lead to frustration and friction within the
>> > project.
>> > I assume such removal requests can be scripted, to make it easy for
>> > the porter/buildd maintainer to do.
>> > Happy hacking,
>> Except that sometimes packages are flagges N-F-U because they break
>> the buildd chroot during build. For example they pull in a package
>> that has a broken maintainer script.
>> Such N-F-Us would be temporary until the faulty package is fixed and
>> should really not cause any removals.
> Then, they should be special-cased, and the rest (that are not short-term
> NFUs) should be made DD-friendly by doing what Pere suggested.
The actual long term solution is the packages-arch-specific file.