Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
* Lucas Nussbaum (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110829 13:10]:
> 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)?
If we have methods which produce reliable lists packages for porters
to check, I'm all for it. But if it takes more time for the porters to
get rid of false positives, then we need to do something different.
Until however an issue has been handed over to the porters explicitly,
it's still the maintainers task to take care of it. Even if it only
means handing it over to the porters in an appropriate way. (And
of course, the maintainer still needs to help, and can't just yell "my
package doesn't build, fix it" to the porters. Especially as the
maintainer has valid package-specific knowledge in many cases.)