On 09/02/2014 11:17 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 02.09.2014 um 23:06 schrieb Reto Buerki: >> But still, I'm conservative enabling new archs without rigorous testing. >> Besides accessibility problems with some archs, this requires quite some >> time (which I don't have atm). >> >> This is why I'm setting the severity of this bug to 'wishlist'. > > no, you are not conservative, but you are hiding issues. knowing which tests > fail is far better than just not building.
Hiding issues is not my intention. If a package is not available for an *unsupported* architecture, there is no issue. If enabling all architectures unconditionally has no negative effect on how the package migrates to testing, I might consider it. As explained, fixing failing architectures is not an option for now (especially for architectures hardly anyone ever uses with Ada). Where can I find more information about how failing architectures influence the acceptance/migration of packages? - reto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
