On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:37:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > (2) nurbs++ has been failing to build on HPPA since July, while > innovation3d has > been failing to build on arm since July. If the mainttainer doesn't know > about > the problem, he's derelict. If he does know and doesn't care, his packages > should > be removed from testing. If he does care, why is there zero evidence?
> >nurbs++: > >ICE on hppa. > >It would be effective if you would tell the maintainer about this issue > The maintainer should know, assuming he's not MIA or grossly irresponsible. This is simply not realistic. It is the porters who review build logs and file bugs where needed; while buildd.debian.org is an excellent tool for committed maintainers who want to speed their packages along, that's a far cry from saying that a maintainer who doesn't seek out this information is "derelict" or "grossly irresponsible". Both the build-tracking tools and the testing-tracking tools are relatively recent additions to the developer's toolkit, that many maintainers may be only peripherally aware of in spite of doing an excellent job of addressing bugs filed against their packages. And in any case, an ICE is a *compiler* bug, not a package bug. Maintainers should be given the opportunity to work around such compiler bugs -- by being notified of them via bug reports -- rather than being further penalized for them. > >and/or send a bug report against gcc-3.3 (needs access to hppa since > >the gcc maintainers want preprocessed source). > No HPPA access. > >innovation3d: > > checking for QT moc (moc)... yes > > checking for QT uic (uic)... no > > configure: error: Cannot find proper QT > >Needs further investigation, you could at least send a RC bug report to > >notify the maintainer. > The maintainer should damn well know about this problem; it's been > occurring for months. That sounds like a good way to turn the tide of opinion among developers towards dropping half of our architectures. innovation3d is up-to-date on 9 of 10 archs. If no one cares enough about the 10th arch to even file a bug report about the failure, why should it be important enough to force the removal of the package? Honestly, it took me longer to write this mail, than it did to file bug #220813. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpVwQ95wqiKd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
