On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> 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.