Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
* Stefano Zacchiroli (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110908 19:53]:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > 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.
I wouldn't expect maintainers to contact them first. I would expect
them to contact buildd admins if it looks as buildd (e.g. "package is
building since a week but no log or upload" or "log says successful
but no upload").
However, I wouldn't complain at anybody who contacts porters directly,
there is some information flow between porters and buildd admins, and
also some porters have access to change wanna-build states. It might
just be that contacting porters isn't the fastest way to get it done.
Looking at my inbox and the mips porter list, this part seems to work