Le Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:51:31PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit : > > So is this "let" supposed to mean "allow" or to mean "force"?
Hi Bernd, it means, the one who wants the package is responsible for it. If upstream and the maintainer are not interested in supporting a package on an architecture, and if the porters want the package in their portfolio, then it would be their responsability to deal with the porting issues. In contrary, if the maintainer wants the package on an architecture, and the porters are busy with other tasks, then it would be the responsibility of the maintainer to find help somewhere else. I do not mean to force people. For the moment the forced people are the maintainers who have to spend time on architectures where their package is not used. This would be much clearer than having three parties that try to throw the hot potato in each other's hands. > Building stuff everywhere and make > it work everywhere is a big investment in quality and making things fit > for the future. I doubt without years of fixing bugs everywhere to make > things work on alpha (which could be seen to be mostly an architecture > born dead in a commercial sense quite early), introducing amd64 could > have been done thus smootly as it comparatibly was. And all those > alignment issues on most architectures usually also speed up code in > i386 if fixed properly... This is very true, and will provide a motivation for building the package on non-mainstream architectures, but where my opinion differs is that looking for new bugs is a task for upstream, not for the pakcage maintainer. I am most happy to assist upstream in this task, but the motivation has to come from him. Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100329020628.gc4...@kunpuu.plessy.org
