Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:07:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 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.
>From http://release.debian.org/squeeze/rc_policy.txt:
4. Autobuilding
[...]
Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on
which they are supported. Packages must be supported on as many
architectures as is reasonably possible. Packages are assumed to
be supported on all architectures for which they have previously
built successfully. Prior builds for unsupported architectures
must be removed from the archive (contact -release or ftpmaster
if this is the case).
If it never build on that arch before, and looks like an arch specific
issue, it's not RC. This for instance means that not all FTBFS bugs
on kfreebsd-* are RC.
I will file bugs as RC even when it didn't build previous when I think
it's supported on that arch and needs some very easy fix, like adding
proper build-depends.
Kurt
Reply to: