On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:08:23PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > I would like to see some tagging mechanism for bugs that are general > > 64-bit bugs as well, so we could theoretically spread the load on > > these between porters for all three archs. > Seems like a good idea. Maybe somebody[tm] can post a proposal to the > appropriate lists... Ok. Hey, ia64/amd64 folks -- I propose that we come up with some tagging mechanism for bugs that are common to our 64-bit architectures, so we could theoretically spread their load between porters for all three archs. What do you think? :-) > > BTW, given that most of the cases of "broken" packages *should* be > > turned into FTBFS bugs by the maintainer in the absence of any other > > action by the porters, I would suggest this is the appropriate > > category for FTBFS bugs even if we aren't planning to proactively > > usertag them. > Thinking of it, it might be clearest to just have a "ftbfs" tag. I've > set up a Wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/AlphaBugs and tagged the > list I sent. Everybody, feel free to change/add... You have: > (add kernel packages here) Since in 2.6 the kernels are all built from the linux-2.6 package, might it not be a good idea to tag these as well? (Not offering to do it myself at the moment, sorry :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature