Re: Bug#176627: a fallacy
Hi,
Adam DiCarlo <aph@debian.org> writes:
> "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@ab-initio.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> He (Ron Lee <ron@debian.org>) responded:
>> > I can quite sympathise with what you want, but I'm not going to
>> > make this package arch-any just so it can break on every arch
>> > except i386 (and hence keep it out of testing for everyone).
>> > That's not the sort of equality we're aiming for.
This original was confused -- making a package arch: any,
even if it breaks on non i386 architectures, does not keep the
package out of testing.
It does give the package a chance to compile on some other
arch, which may not be of any use to the particular package under
discussion.
>> Actually, I thought that *was* the sort of equality Debian was aiming
>> for...if it breaks for any architecture, it's a serious problem that
>> everyone has to deal with. If every Debian developer refused to support
>> architectures he/she didn't have immediate access to, non-x86 Debian would
>> disappear pretty quickly.
>
> I really don't understand this. The maintainers of the software the
> the upstream folks who provide the software. The Debian maintainer is
> not a porter for the software or the maintainer.
Actually, we often are. Ask Branden.
> If the upstream software maintainers state they don't want to support
> certain architectures, what the hell, isn't that their perogative?
Strawman.
> Are we in some sort of inverted fascist world where just because an
> author gives away some software, she's suddenly required to commit to
> supporting whatever we say? Remember, supporting different
> architectures can be a bear of a job.
> I mean, believe me, I agree in principle regarding the equal stress
> Debian itself should place on the different architectures, but I don't
> think it's reasonable Debian developers be forced to perform
> architecture maintenance duties that the upstream maintainer refuse to
> support. I'll go even further and say I will strenuously object with
> any policy statements that force Debian developers to fork packages
> beyond what we're already doing for package integration.
I suppose it is good that we no longer seek unanimity for
policy any more.
> And if you don't like it, volunteer with the upstream maintainer to be
> a port maintainer for the software, and do the work.
I say, nice beating you gave the strawman.
However, this, too, is quite confused: by marking a package
arch: any you are not signing up to port the package; you are not
consigning the upstream to support hell, and indeed, if portability
issues are discovered, you may actually help (gasp) improve the
software for i386.
> In short, this is between you as a PowerPC user/hacker, and the
> upstream maintainers.
I beg to differ.
manoj
--
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. Groucho Marx
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: