> i386 doesn't get hit by it often because most people upload i386
> binaries and the wanna-build queue is almost always empty. Race
> conditions are exposed by parallel architectures.
Why can't we rebuild all packages even on i386 ?
It would help the buildd system by adding manpower from i386 por
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:51:57PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> > working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keep
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:07:32 +0100, Simon Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds more like a case of too-loose build-dependencies to me
> rather than architecture specific problems. This can also hit i386, the
> fact that it hit ARM this time is sheer coincidence.
Should the uim maintain
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keeping up
> right now.
Precisely. And four is already pushing the point of di
Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Michael K. Edwards:
> >The latest uim FTBFS twice on ARM because of the removal of howl
> >dependencies from gnome packages. The rebuilt gnome-vfs2 still hadn't
> >made it to unstable as of the second try, so the archive wasn't in a
> >state that any package depende
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:58:33 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eh, not particularly. This inspection can be done on any machine, and
> there's no reason not to just use the fastest one available to you (whether
> that's by CPU, or network); what's needed here is to first identify
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> >
> > "3) chasing
Hi,
Michael K. Edwards:
The latest uim FTBFS twice on ARM because of the removal of howl
dependencies from gnome packages. The rebuilt gnome-vfs2 still hadn't
made it to unstable as of the second try, so the archive wasn't in a
state that any package dependent on one of its binary packages could
b
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> > "3) chasing down, or ju
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches offload
> work onto the release team is
>
> "3) chasing down, or just waiting on (which means, taking time to poll the
> package's status to f
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is when they actively oppose work.
I have not seen the release team actively oppose useful work. I don't
/think/ I've seen them actively oppose useless work, either. I'm fairly
sure I've seen them actively oppose work that would delay the relea
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > No. There needs to be some override
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not doing their job. But t
13 matches
Mail list logo
