Steve Langasek wrote:Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be RC any more,Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity for FTBFS on non-RC archsSomewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only tagged with a SCC arch should be automatically treated as etch-ignore.
Serious/RC bugs are for ones the whole project should focus on; I don't see much point giving that level of priority to non-release arches, though YMMV.
No objections whatsoever to having a "arch-s390" tag (or a separate Architecture: field, or whatever) for marking problems that are "RC" for a particular arch though. I'm not sure there's necessarily any great reason to have a FTBFS on a random package for a random non-release arch be prioritised particularly highly by either the porting team or the package maintainer though.
Cheers, aj
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
