[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Time to push qt-x11 and friends into testing?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:37:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> (2) nurbs++ has been failing to build on HPPA since July, while 
> innovation3d has
> been failing to build on arm since July.  If the mainttainer doesn't know 
> about
> the problem, he's derelict.  If he does know and doesn't care, his packages 
> should
> be removed from testing.  If he does care, why is there zero evidence?

> >nurbs++:
> >ICE on hppa.
> >It would be effective if you would tell the maintainer about this issue 

> The maintainer should know, assuming he's not MIA or grossly irresponsible.

This is simply not realistic.  It is the porters who review build logs
and file bugs where needed; while buildd.debian.org is an excellent tool
for committed maintainers who want to speed their packages along, that's
a far cry from saying that a maintainer who doesn't seek out this
information is "derelict" or "grossly irresponsible".  Both the
build-tracking tools and the testing-tracking tools are relatively
recent additions to the developer's toolkit, that many maintainers may
be only peripherally aware of in spite of doing an excellent job of
addressing bugs filed against their packages.

And in any case, an ICE is a *compiler* bug, not a package bug.
Maintainers should be given the opportunity to work around such compiler
bugs -- by being notified of them via bug reports -- rather than being
further penalized for them.

> >and/or send a bug report against gcc-3.3 (needs access to hppa since 
> >the gcc maintainers want preprocessed source).

> No HPPA access.

> >innovation3d:
> > checking for QT moc (moc)... yes
> > checking for QT uic (uic)... no
> > configure: error: Cannot find proper QT
> >Needs further investigation, you could at least send a RC bug report to 
> >notify the maintainer.

> The maintainer should damn well know about this problem; it's been 
> occurring for months.

That sounds like a good way to turn the tide of opinion among developers
towards dropping half of our architectures.  innovation3d is up-to-date
on 9 of 10 archs.  If no one cares enough about the 10th arch to even
file a bug report about the failure, why should it be important enough
to force the removal of the package?

Honestly, it took me longer to write this mail, than it did to file bug

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp_T0tpEEHDo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: