Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
On 08/29/2011 01:06 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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)?
In my experience you would get a lot of issues which are nothing porters
need to solve, like libraries not being available as the hardware just
doesn't exist for that architecture or test suites failing for various
random reasons.
If you want a help from a porter, imho you should present a problem in a
way which is easy reproducible - I don't think that we should expect
from porters that they debug your program's test suite for you.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Reply to: