[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

Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

Indeed, there are parts of the archive that are far more complicated
than the rest, where an RM request has far reaching consequences. I'd
like to believe that is the exception, though.


Reply to: