Hello, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer, le ven. 09 sept. 2022 13:41:34 -0300, a ecrit: > Well, Hurd is a non-official arch, so I guess a patch in > extra-cmake-modules could be added and you will have to deal with > FTBFSs, etc. Is that suitable for you?
Aurélien COUDERC, le ven. 09 sept. 2022 21:42:57 +0200, a ecrit: > Yes, we quickly discussed this with Samuel over IRC and I said I was > supportive of the idea. > I still wanted to have some more input from the team so here I have at least > one bit. :-) > > Besides FTBFS in Debian I insisted with Samuel that the porters have a > minimal interest in following up Hurd related bug reports that may end-up in > the upstream bugtracker as a consequence of our patch. > > The main reason stated upstream for not accepting the patch is that they > don't want to have to deal with bug reports for platforms for which they > don't do CI and don't have porter knowledge. The last thing we want is to > load them with the consequences of our own choices that they explicitly > declined to follow. That could easily be perceived as a hostile move from us. Err, well, yes for sure, just like we've been doing it in the past years? I mean, before the "supported list" feature got introduced in kde, packages were building fine or not, and we'd submit patches to fix them when not. There is no reason for us to change this habit, and there is no reason for bugreports to appear upstream without a proposed patch, at least not more than what happened in the past years. Perhaps upstream doesn't realize that kde has been building fine on the Hurd for years before this, and thus there is no actual "move" here? Samuel
