[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-hurd
Subject:    Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting
From:       Lucas Nussbaum <lucas () lucas-nussbaum ! net>
Date:       2011-08-29 15:19:00
Message-ID: 20110829151900.GA13779 () xanadu ! blop ! info
[Download RAW message or body]

On 29/08/11 at 13:06 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built
> fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect
> to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)?

Such a list would be easy to generate using UDD, and I might even do it,
if porters find it useful (and fix all the Ruby porting issues. j/k).

What would be needed for making it "optimally useful"?
- list of packages that FTBFS on $ARCH
- state on other architectures
- list of bugs with architecture usertags for that package
- list of other bugs matching FTBFS, build, or an architecture for that
  package
- links to BTS, PTS, buildd.d.o 

What else?

Would you use it?

L.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110829151900.GA13779@xanadu.blop.info


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110829151900.GA13779@xanadu.blop.info

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]