Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
On 29/08/11 at 13:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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)?
Such a list would be easy to generate using UDD, and I might even do it,
if porters find it useful (and fix all the Ruby porting issues. j/k).
What would be needed for making it "optimally useful"?
- list of packages that FTBFS on $ARCH
- state on other architectures
- list of bugs with architecture usertags for that package
- list of other bugs matching FTBFS, build, or an architecture for that
- links to BTS, PTS, buildd.d.o
Would you use it?