Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
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.
All NFUs are supposed to be short-term. Though some not as short-term as
others... Long term issues should be in Packages-arch-specific.
Some NFUs are used for long-term (non-)issues currently, though that's
not at all what it's supposed to be used for. It would be better if that
just changed...
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
