Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:01:07 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 01:06:15PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > 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)?
> I think to have a useful discussion we need to start with the different
> kind of failures we can actually see that are arch dependend. Some of
> those shows up on only 1 or 2 arches, some show up on all but 1 or 2
> 7) Packages that trigger arch specific toolchain, libc or kernel
> 8) Packages that themself work properly but use a library or
> program that has a problem.
I think some clarification needs to be done for these types of errors. I
sometimes get a (serious) bug reported against one of my packages because:
1. python errored out with a glibc-detected error
2. gcc broke in some way (ICE, error -11, error -4)
3. swig failed with error -10
None of these are my package's fault. I wonder if reassigning to the
program erroring out is the right thing to do.