On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 08:52:04AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> >> Again: what can I do with such a list? See the list below. > > Changes to the P-a-s list should be sent to the contacts listed at the top > > of this file (http://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/Packages-arch-specific). > So I followed the instructions at the top of that file and requested a > P-a-s entry, after asking people here what to do. No response. Hm. I > wasn't sure what to make of that -- maybe this request is too trivial to > bother with, it's fine for the builds to fail, and I should just ignore > it? Or maybe my e-mail wasn't received? Or maybe I misunderstood > something and this was the wrong channel or the wrong thing to do? Right, well, as noted, it's generally a fairly low priority to get packages added to P-a-s -- even though it's an eventual goal, the waste just really isn't so much (in the usual case) to warrant a rush job. So from that standpoint, as long as there is quite such the backlog on P-a-s that there is (from what I can see), it seems like something maintainers should also give a pretty low priority to. Anyway, you could always try throwing this in Adam's direction as well now that he's listed as a co-maintainer of the file. > I waited a while (my saved mail says two months) and asked my AM about it. > He said that mailing them again was probably the right thing to do. So I > went ahead and did that, providing the specific entry that I think should > be used. No response (that was in August). However, I notice in the > build report that m68k is now marking openafs as "not for us" (but the > other arches aren't). Is this because of my mail? Because the buildd > administrator noticed the error message? That would be noticing the error message... > This is a really minor issue in the grand scheme of things. It's not RC, > it doesn't break anything, it's really mostly cosmetic plus a minor > resource waste. Now I'm feeling kind of guilty about bothering clearly > busy people with a trivial request, and I probably really shouldn't send > this message to debian-devel either, since certainly it's not any kind of > serious problem that this hasn't been done. Eh, well, don't get all guilted up over it. :) > Maybe the right thing to do would be to work out a way for package > maintainers to provide input to their own P-a-s entries in some sort of > automated fashion? It does seem like a package maintainer is generally > going to know this sort of thing, and I hate to bother busy buildd > maintainers with this kind of thing if I could do it myself. Well, except between the time you wrote this message and the time I'm drafting a reply to it, I've filed/upgraded at least three bugs about packages wrongly limiting themselves to Architecture: i386; and I'm sure there are plenty more out there in the packages I haven't looked at yet. Skills do vary among maintainers, and especially among novice maintainers there's certainly a tendency to mark packages as arch-specific when they shouldn't be. If P-a-s were being updated automatically based on whatever the maintainer thinks should be there, it would've been substantially harder to find these bugs. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
