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.
buildd.d.o is an essential data source, but the way it is displayed
there is not ideal for porters:
* Build-Attempted includes things that FTBFS on all, or many arches,
like all 32-bit, and is not really specific to the porter's arch;
* it lists FTBFS that the porter has already handled (bug filed,
patches provided), the list can become cluttered with those and it
is hard to see what remains unhandled;
* B-D Uninstallable can be a huge list, where dozens of those only
wait for just one package - it makes sense to group/collapse them;
(this happens in the dose pages also)
* critical toolchain packages don't appear any more promimently than
a sid-only, RC-buggy leaf package with an RM bug filed for it.
THat's why I'm trying to design a better dashboard for porters, though
some ideas could be implemented into buildd.d.o itself someday.
Regards,
--
Steven Chamberlain
steven@pyro.eu.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature