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

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

[ No Cc: please ]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I disagree a bit here, tripple actually.

Actually, I think we are in agreement:

- I've said that contacting the porters is a prerequisite before
  fiddling with the Arch list. RM is the last option.

- With "fiddling with the Arch list" I didn't mean only the Architecture
  line, but generally acting on the arch binaries of a given package,
  including actions such as RM (my bad for the unclearness)

> And last not least, if a package has many / relevant reverse
> dependends, the package maintainer should speak with the release team
> first because the package (e.g. ruby without sparc) won't make it to
> testing anyways otherwise.

I agree with this as well. FWIW, in this specific case the maintainer
has done exactly so (and is waiting for an answer).

> I disagree with "let's first remove things".

Me too :-)  I haven't said "first", but "last".

> Yes. Because one of the most frequent users is the security team
> asking where this and that security build is. We don't want that
> public for obvious reasons.
> The difference is:
> $arch@buildd is to reach the buildd admins.
> debian-$arch is to reach the porters.

Fair enough, but porting issues often appear first as buildd issues and
if we expect maintainers to contact buildd maintainers before proceeding
with other investigations, it would be way better if at least those
exchanges were public.

Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: