Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 01:12:15 +0200
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Re-evaluating architecture inclusion in unstable/experimental
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:39:08PM +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 19:46 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > If it's not tricky, a NMU should be able to fix it easily.
> I'm sorry Samuel, I asked both you and James Clarke, Cc:ed, for help on this
> issue and you both said it was not possible to NMU cmake, even if you are both
> DD's. See bugs
> I think that the power of a package maintainer is far too big, making it
> possible to reject/ignore important and other bugs, especially with patches, for
> non-released architectures (and effectively block NMUs).
The dev ref is quite clear about the right of porters to NMU:
# 184.108.40.206. When to do a source NMU if you are a porter
# If you are a porter doing an NMU for unstable, the above
# guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations.
# Firstly, the acceptable waiting period — the time between when
# the bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU —
# is seven days for porters working on the unstable distribution.
# This period can be shortened if the problem is critical and
# imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the
# porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually
# agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please
# coordinate with the appropriate release team first.
Broken cmake pretty much stops the whole port (as it has direct and indirect
rbdeps all around), this certainly counts as a "hardship".
> I think the next step would be to bring the responsibilities and commitments of
> a Package Maintainer to the TC, in addition to the full control of everything
> related to that package. Maybe the recent salvaging of packages could be helpful
> in the future regarding this problem.
Stopping a whole port for a reason as flimsy as "I'm not interested in
maintaining patches for things that clearly belong upstream." sounds like
something that warrants escalation, yeah.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition:
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17]
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37]
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26]