[Clint Adams] > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin (if, for some > reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) to notify an > architecture's porters of any porting issues manifesting themselves > in a package build?
You bring up the important topic of expectations on who is responsible for what regarding porting of Debian packages to the architectures in Debian. I believe it is important that the separation of responsibilities between package maintainers, porters and buildd maintainers is described somewhere autorative, to ensure that the entire project have a common understanding on who is responsible for what and hopefully avoid or reduce the number of conflicts between package maintainers, porters and buildd administrators. To ensure the various ports of Debian to not put unreasonable strain on package maintainers, I believe it is important that most of the responsibility of getting a package working on a architecture where the package have never built before is placed on the porters and buildd administrators. If this responsibility instead is placed on package maintainers, I believe it is a good idea for Debian to drop the lesser used architectures to ensure they do not slow down the rate of improvement in Debian. Those caring for an architecture (which I assume is the set of porters and buildd administrators) need to be the ones responsible for providing patches to package maintainers to get the architecture working with a given package. Of course this work need to be done together with the package maintainers, but I believe it is unreasonable to expect maintainers to spend time on trying to get their packages working on architectures they do not care for, and am sure it is the way to get Debian to throw out lesser used architectures. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flk4ozs8yj....@login1.uio.no
