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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110829151900.ga13...@xanadu.blop.info
