On 2013-11-05 21:13, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2013, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> Yes, I think that's a good idea; it would avoid issues where >> maintainers are waiting on porters and vice versa, since the >> reassigning of a bug to a port pseudopackage would make it clear who's >> waiting for whom. Additionally, it would allow porters to have a todo >> list of things that need to be done for their port but aren't specific >> to any one package (or of which the root cause hasn't been found yet, >> e.g., "recently compiled binaries segfault, but we don't know why >> yet")
Even if a "first-class tag" for each architecture may be too much inflation, perhaps a generic "portspecific" tag could be helpful (although I cant give precise recipes how this should be used ...) And while we are at suggesting real tags ... what about a "dfsg" tag? > It would also be possible (in the meantime) for bugs to be assigned to > both the port-specific pseudopackage, and the original package which > spawned the bug. There is would be nice if reassigning a package would preserve fixed and found versions - at least for the common subset of source packages in the old and new assignment set. Would Control: affects -1 + port1-pseudopackage port2-pseudopackage be useful? Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5279b490.7060...@debian.org