On 2017-07-03 22:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 07/03/2017 10:20 PM, James Cowgill wrote: > > I was under the impression that the golang maintainers want all > > architectures bootstrapped from gccgo? This was the reason mips64el support > > was not in > > stretch despite upstream support for it. If a normal bootstrap would have > > been acceptable, I would have done it ages ago. > > Why? What difference does it make? If a different bootstrapping compiler > results in a different golang compiler after a second rebuild, there is > something wrong with the compiler anyway. > > > Again I have to point out that you are *not* allowed to upload binary debs > > to the archive before the corresponding source is uploaded. You need to > > re-read > > this: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#porter-guidelines > > > > Please can you actually discuss this with the package maintainers and mips > > porters _before_ you do anything like this again. You should also read the > > mips > > related go bugs filed against various golang packages. > > Odd. Last time I did this for fpc [1], you were actually very happy. Now > you're getting upset despite the only changes actually necessary are > two lines changed in debian/control.in and debian/helpers/goenv.sh. > > What's the difference now? >
Don't mix things. He is happy and we are happy that you work on mips packages and that you provide patches. He is not happy, and I am also not happy that you upload binaries to the archive on your own, without leaving a chance to other porters to have a look first. More importantly we are not happy at all to see binaries that do not match the sources in the archive. He told you so by IRC, I can share the logs if everybody involved allow me to do that. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature