On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 02:02:50AM +0100, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote:
> Back to your concern: I don't think it's a reasonable approach to ask > for tests on all architectures before introducing a change in a port. > If we did that, the ports tree would be ridiculously small and lagging > behind upstream. > > This fixes a *build* issue. A package broken at runtime on one arch or > two is better than no package at all on ten architectures. Back when the port was first proposed in 2007, there were several Project members who weighed in, on this subject, primarily due to the quality of this particular application. While a maintainer's role is limited it does include maintenance and support, and it is the latter which is the basis for my concern. This application didn't run on Alpha or Vax eight years ago, and to my knowledge hasn't been retested on either. Of course I will abide by the governance controls the Project has for ports, which I understand to be committers' consensus, overseen by Theo.
