Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Matthew Johnson]
>> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
>> my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
>> anyone else either...
>
> I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a porter
> flag a package as NFU on a given architecture, he should be required
> to file a removal request for the binaries on that architecture too,
> and CC the package maintainer to let the maintainer know about the
> decision.
>
> Silently flagging packages as NFU on a given architecture do not seem
> like a good idea, and expecting the maintainer to ask for removal
> without letting the maintainer know that the porter refuses to build a
> given package can only lead to frustration and friction within the
> project.
>
> I assume such removal requests can be scripted, to make it easy for
> the porter/buildd maintainer to do.
>
> Happy hacking,
Except that sometimes packages are flagges N-F-U because they break
the buildd chroot during build. For example they pull in a package
that has a broken maintainer script.
Such N-F-Us would be temporary until the faulty package is fixed and
should really not cause any removals.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
