On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> - It's only useful to talk to a porter if the bug clearly is a porting
> issue, rather than a bug in the package. This isn't always easy to
> make out from the build log.
What would you think if you saw this happening only on a
Peter Samuelson writes:
> There is a perception, which may or may not be grounded in reality, that
> _most_ FTBFS from the Debian buildds are either toolchain, kernel, or
> libc issues. It is certainly my perception.
This has not been my experience. I'm sure it depends on the types of
packages
[Wouter Verhelst]
> Please remember that every time a package fails to function correctly
> on a particular architecture, barring toolchain bugs, this is a bug
> in that package itself.
"Barring toolchain bugs" is a pretty big caveat. Just as big as
"barring kernel and libc issues", some other r
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> So that would mean they'd almost always need to be assigned to both
> the pseudopackage and the original package, which I frankly find to
> be a bit of a hassle.
That's why affects exists.
> Additionally, tags have the interesting feature that you ca
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42:14AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm imagining that buildd admins would then just file an FTBFS against
> the package, the maintainer would see it, and say "I don't know why
> this is failing; looks to be arch-specific", reassign or affects the
> bug to the arch spec
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Hector Oron wrote:
> > 2010/7/13, Russ Allbery :
> > > But if those steps fail and it gets to the point where I'm actively asking
> > > for help, my customary experience has been to never get any reply. Mail
> >
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Clint Adams]
> > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin (if, for some
> > reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) to notify an
> > architecture's porters of any porting issues manifesting themselves
> > in
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can mail to the debian-powerpc mailinglist of course, but that
> seems to be mostly a powerpc user support list these days.
Since coordinating porters and keeping them coordinated seems to be a
problem, and pseudopackages with affects and/or reassign
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 06:05:45PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin
> (if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter)
> to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues
> manifesting themselves in a package build?
As a powerpc buil
9 matches
Mail list logo
