[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

On 29/08/11 at 09:47 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum (lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
> > I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility 
> > to investigate porters issues, and propose the following
> > responsibilities:
> > (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
> cross-architectures.

I'm not saying that porters should check for build failures in general.

If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built
fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect
to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)?

- Lucas

Reply to: