Re: Bug#176627: a fallacy
Ron <ron@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
Erm, are you saying that Architecture != any in this case is "getting
in the way" ?
> 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?
That's a good question. I would think removing it from the arch list
and uploading would do it, but I'm not completely sure. Hopefully
someone who knows will respond. This feels like something that should
be in the developers-reference.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: