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

Re: Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism that manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> If neither upstream, nor porters care about a particular package, that
> means there are very little use of having it on that port, and one
> should consider changing the Architecture line to exclude the failing
> port.
> That's about a minute of work + an RM request for that port: another
> minute or two. I don't think this is a bad thing, or something *any*
> maintainer should find troublesome.

That's untrue. An RM request might have far reaching consequences. It can mean
that another package gets uninstallable, which then requires editing its
Build-Dependency list if it can be built on the target architecture without it.
And that might trickle down to many packages. AFAIK that's basically the
approach the GNOME maintainers use and it means that despite the package not
being tested (and possibly used) at all on those architectures, you need to
carry on a lot of excludes for that port and possibly cripple the platform.

Of course, if GNOME is unused one could just remove it completely from those
ports, but I doubt that your approach of "it's just a minute of work to RM it"
is welcomed. (Well, the maintainers would probably like it, as long as there
won't be bugs claiming that you have to support that port because it's a Debian
port in testing.)

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: