On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:12:47PM +0000, Martin Guy wrote: > plus 5 that are not currently flagged to be built on arm* architectures.
please file bugs against the respectice packages if those are mistakes. > port had dropped to 90.47%, if I remember correctly. From today the > buildd admin has stopped posting the necessary stats to > unstable.buildd.net, so no one can check there any more (all figures > are zeroes) That web site just needs to change to use the w-b database from official debian. > If I understand correctly, the fastest way to improve the mainline > armel port would be to schedule the packages for building that are > known to work on armel, but whose binaries are missing: Well you don't understand correctly. There is already hundreds of out-of-date packages scheduled for building so scheduling uncompiled packages is pointless until we get more buildd's. Getting more buildd's is also being worked on, so don't worry. > Or, if I'm wasting my time trying to improve the efficacy of the > buildds, which is where the greatest win currently lies, please feel > free to suggest how else I should spend my time on this project. *FIXING* bugs and submitting patches to BTS. See ltrace as a great example what would be really usefull. Just listing problems or filing bugreports (without patchehs) does not get the port anywhere fast... -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
