On 17/08/2024 14:42, Wookey wrote:
On 2024-08-16 17:46 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
From another perspective: what is the right thing to do in a situation like
this? Trying to hunt down the problem, and thus causing all sorts of noise
like this message? This is what the policy says, but still...
Or just exclude that architecture i. e., list all archs but armel?
You should at least inform the relevant debian-ports list
[...]
If you get no response after a couple of weeks and need to do an
upload then it is fair enough to disable the architecture until a fix
arrives, but idealy prod again and wait a while if you can.
One of the good things about debian is that we support a range of
architectures (to the best of our abilities). Packagers are not
expected to know how to fix arch-specific issues but they are expected
to ask someone who might if they can help, and not just degrade debian
by removing packages from arches without at least filing a bug + asking.
All IMHO of course, and recognising that porter responses can be both
slow and nonexistent, but I do think it's important that we try keep
debian as consistent as possible across architectures, and don't just
reach for the 'disable' button. For someone on a particular arch that
is the same as the 'remove from archive' button in effect.
Fair enough. But TBH, i just cannot wait "a couple of weeks" for a
possible reply; there are users waiting for the backports as I write.
To make it more interesting, the simple -latomic fix doesn't seem to cut
it [1]
To me, the reasonable approach would be to inform the porter list (need
to figure out which) and then disable armel for now. As soon as there is
a solution I could and should upload it.
Or?
--alec
[1]
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=opencpn&arch=armel&ver=1%3A5.10.0%2Bdfsg-3&stamp=1723835858&raw=0
