Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Yeah, that makes sense. I agree with the other message that having something in the BTS for this is probably a good idea. That way, one knows the message has been received and is in a queue somewhere and that people will pick it up when they get a chance, or if it really belongs somewhere else, they can easily transfer it or close it or what have you. > 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 noticed that just as I was sending the last message and may do that. > 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. Oh, hm, yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking to base it on the control file so much as letting the maintainer send a PGP-signed message somewhere to change it, but either way, that's a concern. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
