On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:39:26PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:48:32PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > > As a result, the bts is already ignoring m68k in calculating a bug's > > > > applicability for the testing distribution, at the release team's > > > > request.
> > > As someone who has recently looked at and fixed many problems, I must say > > > the release team has done m68k no service by doing this and actually > > > sabotaged m68k in its ability to catch up again. > > > Fixes for problems are too often simply stuck in the BTS now, because in > > > many cases maintainer simply don't care about m68k support. I often have > > > to bug people to get them to release a fixed package. > > I suggest you read section 5.10 of the developers reference, and do > > porter/non-maintainer source uploads if you think it's holding up things > > and the maintainer isn't very responsive. > Would the 0 day NMU policy apply to m68k specific bugs ? At least this > would allow porter/non-maintainer source uploads. The 0-day NMU policy promulgated by the release team has as its express purpose to improve the release-readiness of testing, so m68k-specific fixes wouldn't be covered by this. But porters are allowed to do NMUs on their own authority, and I know that some porters have done 0-day NMUs when they considered it necessary. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
