Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
* Lucas Nussbaum (email@example.com) [110829 08:59]:
> I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility
> to investigate porters issues, and propose the following
> (1) It is the responsibility of porters to:
> - track architecture-specific bugs (build failures, toolchain
> issues, etc)
> - investigate and solve such bugs
Sorry, but I disagree here. I don't think it is reasonable to expect
porters to check for build failures in general, especially as many of
them just happen because of generic maintainer errors and
It is the responsiblity of the maintainer to track whether his
packages build, and, in case build failures are not easily resolveable by
the maintainer and are architecture-specific, to contact the porters.
(This doesn't read as "the maintainer needs to fix all the bugs"
>From here on, I agree if it are portability issues, the porters have
to start caring and to provide fixes.
> (3) When porters are failing to do (1), we should investigate ways to
> continue to support these ports without releasing them as stable
This mechanismn is already in place, and was used more than once in
the past. Though it hurts, we have done it, and we will definitly EOL
further architectures in due time.