Luk Claes a écrit : > Charles Plessy wrote: >> Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit : >>> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the >>> policy for testing migration? >> Hi, >> >> Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is never built on an >> architecture, testing migration is not prevented. The problem is that for the >> sake of universality, some programs are built where nobody wants them. Then >> when there is a build failure, nobody wants the ‘hot potato’. Upstream does >> not >> support non-mainstream arches, the porters are busy porting more central >> packages, the package maintainer has user requests to answer and knows that >> nobody will send him kudos for building the package where it is not used. > > The reason we want everything to be built everywhere if possible is not > universality, but quality. > > If your package FTBFS on some architecture, then that is a bug. A bug > that was already there, it just was not noticed yet. In most cases the > bug is rather easy to fix, even for non porters as most of the > architecture specific FTBFS issues are due to wrong assumptions like > 32bit/64bit, little endian/big endian...
Is there somewhere a list of "how to fix"? Something simple so that maintainers may do the right things as soon as a package is FTBFS? -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
