On 2024-08-16 17:46 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > > From another perspective: what is the right thing to do in a situation like > this? Trying to hunt down the problem, and thus causing all sorts of noise > like this message? This is what the policy says, but still... > > Or just exclude that architecture i. e., list all archs but armel?
You should at least inform the relevant debian-ports list (less noisy than debian-devel, but as you can see debian-devel worked well in this case so that's not an unreasonable choice), and not just turn the architecture off. This can be via a cc:ed bug or just a mail. Bugs help track issues so future maintainers can find their similar problem (arch-specific issues often appear in multiple packages, needing similar solutions). If you get no response after a couple of weeks and need to do an upload then it is fair enough to disable the architecture until a fix arrives, but idealy prod again and wait a while if you can. One of the good things about debian is that we support a range of architectures (to the best of our abilities). Packagers are not expected to know how to fix arch-specific issues but they are expected to ask someone who might if they can help, and not just degrade debian by removing packages from arches without at least filing a bug + asking. All IMHO of course, and recognising that porter responses can be both slow and nonexistent, but I do think it's important that we try keep debian as consistent as possible across architectures, and don't just reach for the 'disable' button. For someone on a particular arch that is the same as the 'remove from archive' button in effect. Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
