* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8 > > > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the > > > > Whoah, whoah, whoah, is this actually an option? Last I checked that > > answer was 'no'. Hell, that's most of the *problem* here. The limited > > set of people running the buildds don't want to spend more time but > > being allowed to be a buildd maintainer seems to be limited to a rather > > small set of folks. There seems to be a few different reasons for this, > > but one of the big ones is wanna-build access, I believe. This is > > because of limitations of the current wanna-build framework, which may > > have now been resolved? > > I don't think Steve was talking about needing more buildd maintainers; > he was talking about the task of chasing up issues involved in trying to > get required package uploads built everywhere, which currently ends up > being a very significant time drain on the release team (since that's > the set of people who know which uploads have the highest priority).
Perhaps that issue needs to be brought up more directly with the porters
then, if possible. ie: Put a request out there for porters to check
over what packages havn't been built for their architecture? I'm not
entirely sure if that could really be easily extracted out seperately
from what a buildd admin does (which would imply that we *do* need more
buildd admins if only to help with this not-directly-answering-buildd-
emails issue).
Also, doesn't 'get required package uploads built everywhere' imply 'ask
the buildd admins what the story wrt a current package is', at least in
some cases? It would seem that if it's possible to decrease the
turn-around time on that it'd be of some benefit...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
