Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If porters would like psuedopackages for their architecture to
> > track requests, that can be arranged. [Y'all just need to ask,
> > point me at some bugs which should be assigned to them, tell me
> > the maintainer address, and provide the blurb that goes on
> > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages.]
> While I agree it should go through the BTS, I am not sure
> pseudo-packages are the best for that. In most cases fixing a
> porting issue is not the responsibility of the maintainer nor the
> porter, but both together. With pseudo-packages it will end-up as
> bugs reassigned to the pseudo-packages (to the porters), with the
> maintainers being satisfied of having one bug less to care.
You can reassign bugs to multiple packages or use affects to indicate
that a bug affects multiple packages, so this isn't really a problem.
That said, whatever way porters want to keep track of bugs which
maintainers need assistance with is fine by me. It's even fine if
different architectures choose different methods.
Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be
running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to