Re: Making Debian ports less burdensome
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:02:48PM +0000, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > Removing the package from the breaking port is an option, and it
> > should be easy to trigger, but it should not be automatic. If we make
> > the process easy and the maintainer doesn't do it (and also doesn't
> > fix the bug), I think it is reasonable to auto-remove the package from
> > testing altogether (as we currently do).
>
> I think the testing autoremoval thing started out the same way, it
> merely reported long-standing RC bugs, but removal was manual in the
> beginning.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing things automatically. The question is
what is done. I agree with Ian on this: dropping an arch for a package should
not be automatic. But I think it should be easy for the maintainer or porter
to trigger (so the release team doesn't have to spend time on it).
In short, when a build fails on an arch that used to work:
- - Auto-file an FTBFS bug to maintainer and porters.
- - With no response, auto-remove from testing.
- - With response, if requested, remove from arch.
That way the release team only needs to step in for core packages (which should
not be auto-removed, of course).
Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJW0Md9AAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6Vm0P/iaCViA36l3VQbOz9MwhfgxA
xxXgbKe4R91TK1vxAgdLXa3Nv68Q8pRSizDb8B3Jxm/fmZDF07FiCsZ0M3h1RxrF
Lsnh7rc/lHnRLauk+0TBQr8kPSFWAYu/eINPcZK9NWaLHHhBtTNMg6lxF41sbVkf
YBrDjcTAAH9fuxH73xg60+9hyQXSGq4eSxaqB6o8UoWz2DJXA1vhsvtyiWSPlLwc
wRTN0Ebmd+U1ptIBkbkGyKqGOR0IIwMmyzoPPSimnROvr2lZKA4UySuE4lW2MEzb
qjv8uQmfpGqNYZoMRi40fmva8A6h/lRt4GkxHodpsZE2BZnR6DNewYbRQuBPptxj
qbEtZKsQbSEm79KrLvpYV8IeYQcPltv8JHUpmutTiQjDpWP9USA2nZqIs0iL401J
tnZHPAJBvjnzZMJBabAAehkYXE8UdoRlvFbdH9lGLKdd+wv5gHLTyeJ7pxrSxD0J
iQ/7o/48jRiX8li0R93StIa1Vkrx8SiYL1lsepWRV+uifkuH4zynOKOGqU8guxua
H8J00GtI9utdnr0NCTXEl2C1lXNy+oqBcGYOVyDUHfJd3YnXooNT+PEl+nJ/CXLA
FC/VuYem1rczUGh4sHc4y5BIyZTEz8MYEKI6TJ5sorke2O6jwCbA0lwDFWLl7c7V
BH5SgRy97BdkkcEeQT1c
=xzj+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: