[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Extras Development Build Report



On Sun, 08 May 2005 16:32:56 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> Just a side node for this discussion: What do we want do to in case of a
> security update? Block the updated package also if it failed on one of
> the archs? IMHO a bad decision if the resulting delay might be longer
> than one or two days.

Right. It's a scenario that would move us back to the beginning. It would
be evidence that something doesn't work well.

Currently, we pretend that the existing packages are supported for three
architectures. When a problem comes up in a security related version
upgrade, such a package may need the love and care of a team of
maintainers instead of a single arch-specific maintainer.

> > We do need the effort of an arch-specific community of developers and
> > users, who help with making their special architecture as strong and
> > supported as i386.
> 
> Well, you propose this more then once here for some weeks now iirc. What
> is needed to get this "official". Did you discuss it on the FESCO-
> Meetings? I'm all for such a solution (as long as the burden lies on
> more than one shoulder per arch).
> 
> I ask cause I tried to fix some of the x86_64 problems and often did it
> myself in the cvs -- some of the maintainers might wonder what the heck
> this stupid person (e.g. me) was doing there. I would feel better if
> this work was "official" in some way.

Bah! If a maintainer thinks like that, he ought to talk to you and/or
create the README.cvs file as outlined in the Wiki. You would put the
package on your personal black-list and avoid it like the plague. Else you
contribute your fixes where you like to, and, in particular, where open bug
reports are not dealt with or where help is requested explicitly.

> With such a group of persons (or even maillinglists extras-ppc and
> extras-x86_64 [yes, I know, we have enough list already so forget the
> last sentence]) the maintainers would know who to contact in case of
> problems they can't solve on their own.

In case you want to collect a list of contributors, who offer help for
arch-specific problems, how about creating a Wiki page or an arch-specific
tracker ticket in bugzilla, where maintainers can add bugs via the
"depends on" field?

On fedora-extras-list, guidelines could suggest that the architecture
is mentioned in the subject-line, e.g. [ppc] [x86_64], to aid filtering.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]