Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting
On Wed, Nov 18 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 02:49:46PM +0000, Mark Brown a écrit :
>>
>> The flip side of this is that it's just inviting maintainers to
>> decide they can't be bothered with porting effort and leaving ports
>> as second class citizens.
>
> It seems that the trend this year is to not trust the maintainers for
> anything…
It would seem that your remark below somewhat validate
> How about the porters responsability towards the project ? For
They are also jointly responsible for trying to port stuff to
their machines. We are, like, you know, in it together? Which is why
the "project" is a plurality?
> instance, hppa is blocking the testing migration of a couple of my
> packages, and probably the packages of many other maintainers as
> well. Why would it be my duty to help people running Debian on
> machines that are not used in my profession, and for which I have no
> qualification at all? I do not want to prevent people having fun with
To try and make Debian better, rather than just be narrowly
focused on your little fiefdom?
The package maintianer is the resident expert Debian has for the
package. If there are problems building it, the first line of
defense is the package maintainer. I mean, dude, they are _your_
packages that are not building on a supported architecture. If the
problem is in the tool chain, the porters should take lead, but that is
the lower probability scenario. Chances are the fix lies in your domain
of expertise, namely, the package source.
> Debian on this arch, so wouldn't the best solution to never build my
> package on their arch in the first place?
No. The best solution is to fix the buggy package. Or deem it
too buggy to be in Debian, of course.
> It would reduce the number of issues to solve in both groups, Debian
> Med and the hppa porters, which like every other group in Debian
> severely lack manpower.
If some package is so straining the resources of the teams, by
being so fragile as to require a huge amount of effort on a couple of
architectures with no legitimate reason for being included in P-a-s,
then the consideration should be to fix the package, or drop it, before
relegating users of hppa to second class citizens -- as long as the
project still supports hppa.
manoj
--
"Mind if I smoke?" "I don't care if you burst into flames and die!"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: