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

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

On 29/08/11 at 13:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built
> fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect
> to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)?

Such a list would be easy to generate using UDD, and I might even do it,
if porters find it useful (and fix all the Ruby porting issues. j/k).

What would be needed for making it "optimally useful"?
- list of packages that FTBFS on $ARCH
- state on other architectures
- list of bugs with architecture usertags for that package
- list of other bugs matching FTBFS, build, or an architecture for that
- links to BTS, PTS, buildd.d.o 

What else?

Would you use it?


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110829151900.GA13779@xanadu.blop.info">http://lists.debian.org/20110829151900.GA13779@xanadu.blop.info

Reply to: