On Tue, Nov 17 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit : >> >> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the >> policy for testing migration? > > Hi, > > Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is never built > on an architecture, testing migration is not prevented. The problem is > that for the sake of universality, some programs are built where > nobody wants them. Then when there is a build failure, nobody wants > the ‘hot potato’. Upstream does not support non-mainstream arches, the > porters are busy porting more central packages, the package maintainer > has user requests to answer and knows that nobody will send him kudos > for building the package where it is not used.
I beg to differ. This sounds like a maintainer that is not providing the support for their package, and needs to orphan that package; not building on some architecture is often a symptom of problems elsewhere as well. I am not sure we ought to support maintainers that are neglectful of their packages. manoj -- There are some things worth dying for. Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7 Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org