1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.PORTS.X86-64

  • BTS usertag and X-Debbugs-CC for x32?

    From John Paul Adrian Glaubitz@21:1/5 to Aaron M. Ucko on Tue Dec 19 17:00:02 2017
    On 12/19/2017 04:49 PM, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
    Should we stick with that convention or switch to a different address?
    Either way, pabs has a script that can adjust any necessary metadata.
    Also, Adrian G. recommends explicitly copying porters on these bug
    reports, generally via the usertag's associated user address. What
    porter address(es) should we use here?

    Maybe we can ask the mailing list admins to create a debian-x32 list?

    Adrian

    --
    .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
    : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
    `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
    `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aaron M. Ucko@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 19 17:00:02 2017
    Greetings.

    As some of you may know (or have noticed), I've been in the practice of reporting bugs against packages that recently emerged from NEW and
    proceeded to FTBFS on some or all architectures. Every so often, I
    encounter a bug specific to the non-release x32 architecture, which runs
    on amd64 hardware and does not have a dedicated lists.debian.org list.

    When reporting x32-specific bugs (most recently, qbs bug #884472), I've
    been specifying a usertag of x32 with a user address of debian-amd64@lists.debian.org. However, per a recent off-list
    discussion with pabs about standardizing architecture usertags in
    general, I see that the wiki page[1] now says the convention has been to
    use debian-x32@lists.debian.org even though that's not actually a list.

    Should we stick with that convention or switch to a different address?
    Either way, pabs has a script that can adjust any necessary metadata.
    Also, Adrian G. recommends explicitly copying porters on these bug
    reports, generally via the usertag's associated user address. What
    porter address(es) should we use here?

    [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs/ArchitectureTags

    --
    Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?amu@monk.mit.edu

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Borowski@21:1/5 to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz on Tue Dec 19 17:50:03 2017
    On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 04:51:29PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
    On 12/19/2017 04:49 PM, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
    Should we stick with that convention or switch to a different address? Either way, pabs has a script that can adjust any necessary metadata.
    Also, Adrian G. recommends explicitly copying porters on these bug
    reports, generally via the usertag's associated user address. What
    porter address(es) should we use here?

    Maybe we can ask the mailing list admins to create a debian-x32 list?

    If you guys believe the activity would make such a list warranted, why not? Note that this had been proposed before, in #692042.

    (I for one haven't done anything in quite a while, I'm afraid.)

    Meow!
    --
    // If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
    // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
    // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
    // your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)