On 2013-11-03 23:04, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:54:34AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: >> [...] > >> I suppose a "sponsor-only" DD could be sufficient, provided that the >> sponsor knows the porters well enough to be willing to sign off on e.g. >> access to porter boxes. I guess the sponsor would also need to dedicate >> time to mentor (new?) porters on workflows and on quicks like when is a >> FTBFS RC and when it isn't etc. > > Why would the sponsor need to be involved in getting the porters access to > porter boxes? Porter boxes exist so that DDs *not* involved in a port have > access to a machine of the architecture and can keep their packages working. > I've never heard of a porter who didn't have access to their own box for > porting work. >
I will not rule out that it was a poor choice of example on my part for ia64 (and maybe powerpc), which is(/are) the concrete port(s) we would be talking in this case. That said, it is my understanding that "one does not simply own an s390(x)"[1]. Nor would I be concerned to have arm porters that worked on all 3 arm ports while possessing hardware only for a (non-empty) subset of those architectures. ~Niels [1] I certainly wouldn't have space for something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z800_2066_JKU.jpeg (and much less the money. Yeah I know that is technically not an s390, but as I understand it, an s390 should be "around that size") -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5278a3e1.30...@thykier.net
