Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> 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. > > Then, they should be special-cased, and the rest (that are not short-term > NFUs) should be made DD-friendly by doing what Pere suggested.
The actual long term solution is the packages-arch-specific file. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]