Greetings. As some of you may know (or have noticed), I've been in the practice of reporting bugs against packages that recently emerged from NEW and proceeded to FTBFS on some or all architectures. Every so often, I encounter a bug specific to the non-release x32 architecture, which runs on amd64 hardware and does not have a dedicated lists.debian.org list.
When reporting x32-specific bugs (most recently, qbs bug #884472), I've been specifying a usertag of x32 with a user address of debian-amd64@lists.debian.org. However, per a recent off-list discussion with pabs about standardizing architecture usertags in general, I see that the wiki page[1] now says the convention has been to use debian-...@lists.debian.org even though that's not actually a list. Should we stick with that convention or switch to a different address? Either way, pabs has a script that can adjust any necessary metadata. Also, Adrian G. recommends explicitly copying porters on these bug reports, generally via the usertag's associated user address. What porter address(es) should we use here? [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchitectureTags -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu