On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:07:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I am not asking for throwing away people's work or ignoring their motivation, > but I feel demotivated that I am asked efforts with nothing in return, > since--and this is what makes this mail more or less on-topic in this > thread--it > is usually not the porter nor the users themselves who insist on putting a > high > priority for distributing scientific leaf package on their favorite > architecture, but a policy that I challenge, enforced through the buildd > maintainers by filing RC bugs.
>From http://release.debian.org/squeeze/rc_policy.txt: 4. Autobuilding [...] Packages must autobuild without failure on all architectures on which they are supported. Packages must be supported on as many architectures as is reasonably possible. Packages are assumed to be supported on all architectures for which they have previously built successfully. Prior builds for unsupported architectures must be removed from the archive (contact -release or ftpmaster if this is the case). If it never build on that arch before, and looks like an arch specific issue, it's not RC. This for instance means that not all FTBFS bugs on kfreebsd-* are RC. I will file bugs as RC even when it didn't build previous when I think it's supported on that arch and needs some very easy fix, like adding proper build-depends. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100714164629.ga29...@roeckx.be