> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 02:02:50AM +0100, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote: > > > Back to your concern: I don't think it's a reasonable approach to ask > > for tests on all architectures before introducing a change in a port. > > If we did that, the ports tree would be ridiculously small and lagging > > behind upstream. > > > > This fixes a *build* issue. A package broken at runtime on one arch or > > two is better than no package at all on ten architectures. > > Back when the port was first proposed in 2007, there were several Project > members who weighed in, on this subject, primarily due to the quality of > this particular application. > > While a maintainer's role is limited it does include maintenance and support, > and it is the latter which is the basis for my concern. This application > didn't run on Alpha or Vax eight years ago, and to my knowledge hasn't been > retested on either. > > Of course I will abide by the governance controls the Project has for ports, > which I understand to be committers' consensus, overseen by Theo.
I really don't tell the ports people what to do. But... I also don't think they should be martyrs.
