Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for > > > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity > > > serious. > > > > Can the porters fix such bugs? > > They usually do -- they work out the problem, and provide a patch. > > The trick then appears to be getting maintainers to actually apply them.
Right, so NMU. We can always suitable adjust NMU policies; they are there to serve us, not to prevent us from solving problems. Note that in the lead-up to release, non-RC NMUs are fair game to solve bugs; that's part of what a BSP is for. Since the scc strategy essentially makes porters into their own release managers, we could easily say that porting teams gearing up for release can do the same thing to fix arch-specific killer bugs. > > Do the porters promise me a machine running unstable so that I can fix > > them myself? > > That would be the "developer-accessable machine" mentioned in the nybble, I > believe. Right; they don't exist now. My point is that if the porters can't find two reliable machines for developers (one for stable, one for unstable), then it doesn't seem all that crazy to say that developers shouldn't be responsible for working with the arch themselves. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
