Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"):
> On 2013-10-29 16:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm keen that Debian should continue to support a wide range of
> > architectures. Would it help if I, as a DD, volunteered to sponsor
> > porter uploads for any architecture ? That is I guess I'm
> > volunteering to become a new kind of person - a "non-port-specific
> > porter sponsor".
> I suppose that could help ports without a DD if we allowed such to be in
> However, it is my understanding that our main issue with ports
> often is that they are not actively maintained (or appears to lack
> active maintenance).
> As mentioned we are debating whether the "5 DDs" requirement still makes
> sense. Would you say that we should abolish the requirement for DD
> porters completely? I.e. Even if there are no (soon to be) DDs, we
> should consider the porter requirements fulfilled as long as they are
> enough "active porters" behind the port?
I don't have a good feel for the answer to that question.
It's just that if it is the case that a problem with ports is the lack
of specifically DDs, rather than porter effort in general, then
sponsorship is an obvious way to solve that problem.
If you feel that that's not really the main problem then a criterion
which counts porters of any status would be better.
(Mind you, I have my doubts about a process which counts people
promising to do work - it sets up some rather unfortunate incentives.
I guess it's easier to judge and more prospective than a process which
attempts to gauge whether the work has been done "well enough".)
> As an example I remember having received several complains from
> e.g. the GCC maintainers in regards to the state of gcc on various
> ports. Here I would suspect a patch would be sufficient without
> needing to actually NMU gcc to get the fix in. There are also stuff
> like the port concerns from DSA that attention.