Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> So that would mean they'd almost always need to be assigned to both
> the pseudopackage and the original package, which I frankly find to
> be a bit of a hassle.
That's why affects exists.
> Additionally, tags have the interesting feature that you can limit a
> query by whether or not something is tagged in a specific way. "Give
> me all packages that affect powerpc or s390, but not any other
> architecture" could be an interesting way to hunt for bugs related
> to char signedness, which is going to be awkward using
You can do the same thing using packages; there's no difference in the
way that packages are searched that differentiates them from tags.
The major difference between tags and pseudopackages is that mail
going to a psuedopackage's maintainer works today. Mail regarding bugs
containing a specific tag does not currently go anywhere, and this
would have to be changed. I can change this (and in fact, generalizing
this is on my todo list), but I want to avoid spending time on a
solution which won't be used.
Pseudopackages also have the advantage that bugs regarding buildds and
such which are in the porters domain can also be assigned to a
specific psuedopackage so the porters can track it.
Only one creature could have duplicated the expressions on their
faces, and that would be a pigeon who has heard not only that Lord
Nelson has got down off his column but has also been seen buying a
12-bore repeater and a box of cartridges.
-- Terry Pratchet _Mort_