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

Bug#735553: packages.debian.org: unreleased, debports architectures make packages.d.o confusing

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote:

> * end-users -- they aren't using debports ports so they don't want to see
>   this information

I think this is a bit of a simplification, the recent porter threads
show that some end users still use ports that have been demoted to
debports, via debports itself or archive.d.o.

> If the work-in-progress, dead, being-revived or otherwise progressing well
> ports from debports were keeping up with all packages in the archive,
> this wouldn't be a problem but then again, if these ports were keeping up,
> they could be official ports in any case.

Some of the ports criteria preclude even ports that are keeping up
from becoming official ports, for example ports to very old (m68k) or
very new architectures (arm64) will find it very hard to satisfy the
"machines available to buy" criterion.


> (b) if those working on debports architectures need Debian maintainers to see
>     information about the status of the packages and would thus be sorry to
>     see this information disappear from view, then let's clone this bug to
>     qa.debian.org proposing to include it in the packages.qa.d.o pages where
>     the developer group is more likely to look for it anyway.

packages.qa.d.o doesn't include any information about architectures.
The debports buildd interface is where maintainers should go to find
out about their package on unofficial ports. The PTS already links to
the relevant pages.

> It would be nice if this FAQ didn't need to be answered on a ~daily basis
> and if packages.d.o could become more useful to end-users.

Do you think a clarification like what we have on the pages for
non-free and experimental would be helpful there? Perhaps something
like "this package is only available on unofficial architectures, has
probably been removed from Debian. Please do *not* ask about in Debian
support lists, forums or channels".



Reply to: