Le Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
>
> I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect
> porters to read the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, I don't expect
> the same from the buildd admin.
Dear all,
Maybe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" lists should be read by
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> having one buildd maintainer per arch as opposed
> to a team will allow one to faster see recurring obscure problems that
> need fixing).
That's the theory. The reality shows the exact contrary, at least for arm:
- The chroot of "netwinder" is broken for weeks.
- "tofe
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:24:27PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect
>
> Maybe that's because the buildd admins used to be the porters, and then,
> for some reason I do not understand, this mysteriously stopped being
> true.
Usuall
> I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect
Maybe that's because the buildd admins used to be the porters, and then,
for some reason I do not understand, this mysteriously stopped being
true.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't you find it a bit hypocrit to have x86 uploads go directly to the
>> archive, and not allowing even a single day delay which would allow to
>> stop unclean DD-build-boxes breakage and a clean state, and on th
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:20:30AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not
> doing his job as buildd maintainer. You can't pretend to be the one
> handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions
> around problems sp
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> > given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.
>
> It seems common sense!
Huh? It seems common sense that most subscribers ignore at least so
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:39:13AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > All started with this email:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2006/08/msg00151.html
>
> > ARM was *in danger*, a lot of stuff (java, xulrunner, mono, ...) wer
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems common sense! Debian has a serious problem if you have to
> write everything down.
>
> "A buildd maintainer must be able to type Unix commands on a
> keyboard."
"And the said keyboard must be connected one way or another to the
said buildd
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:36:45AM +,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 43 lines which said:
> > An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not
> > doing his job as buildd maintainer.
>
> Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> given
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not
> doing his job as buildd maintainer.
Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.
> You can't pretend to be the one
Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 à 16:45 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> So first of all, neither the debian-arm list, nor the #debian-arm channel,
> nor his blog are a communication medium that's guaranteed to reach the arm
> buildd maintainer *or* the buildd local admins. For the former, you want
> [
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 07:58:34AM +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't you find it a bit hypocrit to have x86 uploads go directly to the
> archive, and not allowing even a single day delay which would allow to stop
> unclean DD-build-boxes breakage and a clean state, and on the ot
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So, why :
> > * does aurelien initiative causes troubles ?
>
> If the packages he uploads have already been built (but not uploaded) by the
> autobuilders, the packages in the archive will not correspond to the public
> build
Some of the comments and questions in this thread suggest gaps in
understanding of the autobuilders, which I think warrant an answer.
Hopefully this doesn't lead to more flames and recriminations...
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Aurelien mailed debian-arm, we
Luk Claes a écrit :
> How did Aurelien get wanna-build access for his buildd without
> explaining to the respective team how the buildd was maintained in the
> first place or did he not ask for it...
>
I have setup a wanna-build database (I am the one running the
wanna-build database for hurd-i
[this discussion is off-topic on -devel, please follow-up on -project]
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:51:55PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> How did Aurelien get wanna-build access for his buildd
He didn't, it's a rogue autobuilder. Which is the reason it got
blacklisted.
> or did he not ask for it...
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I happened to have had access to the internet during my vacation, and
I happened to read a backlog on #debian-release that frightens me:
15:52 aj | "# unilateral action to run an emulated buildd -- all arm changes
sidelined until fixed."
15:52aba | oh, where?
15
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Aurelien mailed debian-arm, went to #debian-arm, had no response. He
> then warn about his intention [1] to run qemu-based autobuilders to fill
> the gap due to broken arm buildds. He did that on the open, and got ...
> zero answe
19 matches
Mail list logo
