On 23 November 2013 21:53, Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Ivo De Decker wrote: >> During a discussion about architecture qualification, the release team >> concluded that it would be interesting to have a better way to track >> architecture-specific bugs. It would be nice to have BTS tags for each >> architecture that is currently in the archive. It might also make >> sense to have tags for the architectures on debian-ports, to be able >> to filter issues about these easily. > > This sounds reasonable; are only tags required, or do we need more > infrastructure than that? > > These are the list of ports that I see: > > amd64 > armel > armhf > hurd-i386 > i386 > ia64 > kfreebsd-amd64 > kfreebsd-i386 > mips > mipsel > powerpc > s390x > sparc > avr32 > sh > > What else am I missing? [I note that > http://www.debian.org/ports/#portlist-released seems to have a > reasonable list of ports, and > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/releases/sid/archive.data?view=markup > has another; I'd like to reference a canonical location for ports > (perhaps maintained by debian-ports or similar) so I don't have to > figure out for myself which ports need a tag and what that tag should > be, and which ports are just duplicates of other ports, and therefore > don't need a tag. >
There are 484 reports usertagged "debian-...@lists.debian.org arm64". Please consider including "arm64" tag. Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUg0yh60VEh50NCbYK+nfs65F5x3jU6MFL+WEdqT=qz...@mail.gmail.com
