Re: Bug#176627: a fallacy
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 03:19:54PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> Ron <ron@debian.org> writes:
>
> > If -policy wants to run a flame war
>
> Hey, who ever wants a flame war?
:-) Well, I don't usually follow -policy (the list not the document)
unless something comes up that I need to chime in on. You all seem to
be doing a pretty sane job of it, leaving me time to write and package
code. Maybe it's the exception to other lists with 1000 dd's on them...
> Although I will add on this point Ron that it is also part of your
> duty here, IMHO, to submit the build portability and other useful
> patches upstream. I think I can assert that w/o controversy.
I'm on the upstream -users list for it, and though I'm no compiler
guru myself I've sent them a couple of patches of my own and forwarded
a number of others in the past. In this case I originally referred the
OP to communicate with them directly if that was required, which seems
the expedient thing to do if I've got nothing in particular to offer
that will help, but his finding was that a few small changes to the
diff.gz will suffice.
I'm rather surprised given there appears to be no precedent for building
it on other than i386, but not unhappily so. They've added a new target
without sacrificing any of gcc's other portability -- now if they'd just
merge it all with mainstream gcc ...
But even the OP agreed that not every piece of software is necessarily
portable in which case I also agree it's up to someone who wants it on
the port to do the porting -- the Debian maintainer is not obliged to
port i386 assembly to some other platform just because 'duty calls for
equality' any more than upstream is, but I don't think anyone disagreed
with that. Just that we shouldn't get in the way of that being possible
if someone has an interest in making it so.
I would presume wrt to my misunderstanding about testing, that its also
possible if a port becomes 'permanently' broken for some package, with
no porter prepared to help fix it, to remove that port from the
requirement for subsequent versions to enter testing on the remaining
ports. In that event should I make a request to ftp-admin, remove it
from the arch list, or something else?
Ron
Reply to: