Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
Le Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:33:47AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs a écrit :
> * Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> [2010-07-14 02:14:12 CEST]:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures
>
> Isn't that what <http://www.debian-ports.org/> is about, being second
> class architectures?
Hi Gerfried,
a key difference between Debian and Fedora in that case, is that Fedora's
definition of secondary architectures has something like a social contract,
where the mutual efforts, concessions and benefits are written down.
Since Debian has the ressource for hosting some secondary architectures—the
number of arches listed on buildd.debian.org/stats is 2–3 times the number on
debian-ports.org—then I think that the current situation where Debian provides
ressources to many ports is great. I am not proposing to remove them from our
infrastructure and I suggested to not do so in my previous email.
But treating the same a port that has 8 popcon users and ports that have 25,115
or 62,555 is in my opinion putting pressure on the maintainers with mostly
intangible justification.
I am not asking for throwing away people's work or ignoring their motivation,
but I feel demotivated that I am asked efforts with nothing in return,
since—and this is what makes this mail more or less on-topic in this thread—it
is usually not the porter nor the users themselves who insist on putting a high
priority for distributing scientific leaf package on their favorite
architecture, but a policy that I challenge, enforced through the buildd
maintainers by filing RC bugs.
This is why I post in this thread, to ask for better coordination between the
porters and the buildd maintainers, and in particular that build issues are at
least presented equally to the porters and the package maintainer, instead of
simply stamping a package “RC” and leave the burden of the work on the
maintainer.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles
Reply to: