I concur with Dan here - part because it's really his job, part because I've had it with filing bug reports from m68k buildds myself. But there's always two sides to that issue, so:
> > I think that's a drastically unfair judgement. I would rather ask > > every maintainer to do a few extra steps for the quality of their > > packages (or better yet, to improve automated systems to notify > > (opt-in) maintainers about such problems). > > Right now, there isn't even any link from www.debian.org to > buildd.debian.org. If you want maintainers to be responsible for > checking up on each port to make sure that their packages work on that > port, then at a minimum, the following things need to happen: > > 1) The developer's reference should say so > 2) There should be easy and convenient links with that information > from (say) packages.debian.org Agreed on both counts. The developers corner would be a nice spot to add a link to the package status interface. Having the latest build logs and status on each packages' page on packages.debian.org is a nice idea, we just need to make sure packages.debian.org works right in the first place (i.e. I can look up arcane stuff like pmud there). Once that's done, a log button with arch selector should be easy enough to have. What do we have to file a bug against to make that happen? www.debian.org?? > 3) Every port should be responsible for making a machine available to > developers so that they can fix bugs in their packages. I can only speak for m68k with any authority - we do offer access for developers on request, using those machines we have (neither of them owned by Debian or maintained by DSA, all privately owned and hosted). We do also work on making one rather high end m68k box available to all developers without request (still waiting for the barebones box to be shipped), that machine will be integrated into the standard account management (if the DSA team agrees). That's all we caan do - if you suggest having each port set up a mandatory developer machine I'd expect the project to cover the costs for that in some way. If you look at http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi most architectures appear to have one or more machines available. For powerpc there is voltaire (usually), and in a pinch we can fall back to giving out accounts on request (see my other mail). > Note that the problem with microwindows is currently stymied for lack > of #3. That's a temporary problem only. Michael
