[Matthew Johnson] > Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide > my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for > anyone else either...
I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a porter flag a package as NFU on a given architecture, he should be required to file a removal request for the binaries on that architecture too, and CC the package maintainer to let the maintainer know about the decision. Silently flagging packages as NFU on a given architecture do not seem like a good idea, and expecting the maintainer to ask for removal without letting the maintainer know that the porter refuses to build a given package can only lead to frustration and friction within the project. I assume such removal requests can be scripted, to make it easy for the porter/buildd maintainer to do. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
