On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [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, > > Except that sometimes packages are flagges N-F-U because they break > the buildd chroot during build. For example they pull in a package > that has a broken maintainer script. > > Such N-F-Us would be temporary until the faulty package is fixed and > should really not cause any removals.
Then, they should be special-cased, and the rest (that are not short-term NFUs) should be made DD-friendly by doing what Pere suggested. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
