Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:19:27AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> > Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important >> > resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which is the only way >> > to get lazy maintainers moving is being taken away. >> > >> >> That's an awfully pessimistic view. All porters need is some sort of >> leverage that allows them to force maintainers to accept or deal w/ >> their patches; perhaps some QA team members who will NMU >> poorly-maintained packages on behalf of porters? The amd64 crew seems to >> be getting along ok w/out having their FTBFS bugs considered RC.. > > The developers reference has a significant piece of text about porting. > It includes NMU possibilities (NMU's are *always* a possibility to work > around "lazy" maintainers, recall that the Social Contract explicitely > mentions you can never demand work from anyone). > > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-porting > > Note that porter patches for kFreeBSD and amd64 so far seem, as far as I > can see, to be relatively swiftly applied anyway by maintainers, despite > those patches not being RC either. This suggests to me that also in the > future with patches for SCC architectures, this should normally not be > a problem, and of course, NMU's are possible otherwise. > > --Jeroen
Looking just at the ones I reported: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitter&data=brederlo%40informatik.uni-tuebingen.de&archive=no #249397: FTBFS: amd64 missing in Architecture list Package: mga-vid; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 301 days old. # #249440: inetutils: Wrong Priorities and Sections in debain/control break debian-amd64 Package: inetutils; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #205487, #266666, #290700; 301 days old. # #251765: FTBFS: missing amd64 support Package: scm; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 288 days old. # #252760: FTBFS: architecture missing Package: mkrboot; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 282 days old. # #252771: FTBFS: wrong architecture Package: bsign; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 282 days old. # #254089: FTBFS: test for res_mkquery is broken Package: mtr; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 274 days old. # #255725: FTBFS: amd64 needs Build-Depends svgalig1-dev too Package: cthugha; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 265 days old. .... That suggests that FTBFS bugs for SCC archs will be ignored just as long, 1/2 - 3/4 of the planed release cycle. Now imagine a bug in fsck that destroys data being left open for so long. SCC will become useless real quick unless porting NMUs remain allowed after 7 days as it is now and unless portes exercsise those NMus more often. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]