Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:34:41 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Stefano Zacchiroli (email@example.com) [110908 19:22]:
>> Hopefully, not having $pkg on $arch would raise the visibility of the
>> issue and attract attention to fix the issue. In the meantime, the
>> fact that $pkg is not on $arch (and the justification for that) could
>> be used by the release team as a basis to decide whether $arch is in
>> a releasable state or not, exactly as it would be if $pkg were a NEW
>> package in the archive.
> I disagree with "let's first remove things". If a package like ruby
> doesn't build on sparc this bug report is RC exactly as long as sparc is
> a release arch. The release team has (and does) override such bug
> reports for testing migration if appropriate. Removing the binary
> package doesn't help at all but just makes things worse. So please don't
> do it, especially for packages with reverse dependencies.
The big issue (as I understood from the OP) here is that the toolchain is
not keeping up. Why should the maintainers of other software be bothered
about that architecture?