On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<snip>
>
> 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...
>
Hi Stephen etc.,
IIUC, this is a summary:
make source, build package, upload i386 deb to incomming, tell wanna-build,
[build
on buildd, upload non-i386 deb to incomming] repeat for all archs
Is the issue:
1) buildd availability (network or amount)
2) buildd admin responcivness,
3) arch-specific issues that cause build problems for non-i386 not getting
fixed?
(would that be the 'porters' job?)
4) buildd software issues(pbuild,sbuild,wanna-build,etc)
5) something else?
as I've never been a party to this, I'm trying to get more insight into
the 'improbability drive' that powers Debian. Do I need a pan-galactic
garggle-blaster and a towel first?
Cheers,
Kev
--
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
`$' $'
$ $ _
,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $
`Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
