Hi, On 27.02.2016 05:43, Paul Wise wrote: > I would have thought porters would be following the buildd/piuparts/CI > pages for their port (where available) and thus would not need to be > notified about arch-specific FTBFS or testing issues. For the most part, maintainers are in a much better position initially. A package failing on m68k can mean - it is broken on slow machines (runs into a timeout) - it requires lots of memory to build - it is broken on big-endian machines - it is broken on m68k specifically, because - the m68k toolchain has an issue - the package is lacking explicit support (assembler section?) - a bug in the package is exposed on m68k only - it is broken everywhere, so m68k breaks as well I think it makes sense for a maintainer to make the initial call on whether that is a problem to be handled by the porters, or an upstream issue. If it's failing on one architecture only because the program makes some unportable assumption, I believe that to be a bug in the package. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature