From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:12:39 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Changes in the Buildroot autobuilders In-Reply-To: References: <20130616180054.58f52914@skate> <20130616170305.GI3495@free.fr> <20130616191806.7b4a899a@skate> <20130616172508.GL3495@free.fr> <20130616200540.5a370504@skate> <20130617074535.GB16699@lukather> <20130617094958.33eaff88@skate> <20130617175407.GA3202@free.fr> Message-ID: <20130618091239.28d1dbc8@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Mischa Jonker, On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:09:51 +0000, Mischa Jonker wrote: > How would we handle architecture-specific failures for a package if we don't have a global MAINTAINERS file? Add another _MAINTAINER variable in the config.in. file? I believe architecture-specific failures would have to be handled separately. We can't really add a maintainer into a Config.in file. Even if we have a global MAINTAINERS file, how would architecture maintainers be expressed? In the kernel, the MAINTAINERS file creates a relation between a person and set of files/directories, but an architecture in Buildroot is not a set of files or directories. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com