Re: Request for access to porterbox
On 07/27/2016 09:17 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:41:51PM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>> Rationaly: reproduce #832544, #832543
> I wonder why these bugs are important and not wishlist.
Because they are FTBFS bugs on non-release archs and hence should
be of severity important? (Just as FTBFS on release archs are
considered "serious".) important doesn't block testing migration,
so it doesn't impede anything even if you have -ENOTIME to fix
it right now.
(Developers Reference explicitly states: "be kind to porters".
I consider severity: important for FTBFS to be part of that.)
The only case where I think wishlist is appropriate if you have
packages that explicitly declare a subset of architectures (e.g.
because they contain hand-crafted assembly code for each arch
or are a compiler or similar) instead of Arch: any.
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: