Paul Wise wrote: > I would have thought porters would be following the buildd/piuparts/CI > pages for their port (where available) and thus would not need to be > notified about arch-specific FTBFS or testing issues.
buildd.d.o is an essential data source, but the way it is displayed there is not ideal for porters: * Build-Attempted includes things that FTBFS on all, or many arches, like all 32-bit, and is not really specific to the porter's arch; * it lists FTBFS that the porter has already handled (bug filed, patches provided), the list can become cluttered with those and it is hard to see what remains unhandled; * B-D Uninstallable can be a huge list, where dozens of those only wait for just one package - it makes sense to group/collapse them; (this happens in the dose pages also) * critical toolchain packages don't appear any more promimently than a sid-only, RC-buggy leaf package with an RM bug filed for it. THat's why I'm trying to design a better dashboard for porters, though some ideas could be implemented into buildd.d.o itself someday. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature