Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can mail to the debian-powerpc mailinglist of course, but that
> seems to be mostly a powerpc user support list these days.
Since coordinating porters and keeping them coordinated seems to be a
problem, and pseudopackages with affects and/or reassign as
appropriate seem to be the best solution, are there any objections to
requiring a porter psuedopackage for each architecture and setting the
maintainer of that pseudopackage to the appropriate mechanism to
I'm imagining that buildd admins would then just file an FTBFS against
the package, the maintainer would see it, and say "I don't know why
this is failing; looks to be arch-specific", reassign or affects the
bug to the arch specific porter psuedopackage, and the porters now can
track the bug.
If there aren't any objections here, I'll run this by the porters that
I can track down.
What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for
someone more interesting.