Re: buildd administration -- TeX related FTBFS

Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > >> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> > I think one to ease tension is to make tetex packages to coexist in >> > archive just like many gcc. [...] > I should have been clear. I wish them to coexist only in "archive" but > they can conflic

Re: buildd administration -- TeX related FTBFS

Hi, On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 01:48:12PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > I think one to ease tension is to make tetex packages to coexist in > > archive just like many gcc. > > That would be nice - but it would cause even more work, I fear. And it > woul

Re: buildd administration

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:12:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > This may sound heretical to you, but I don't consider software to be > DFSG-free unless there's actually a copy somewhere that people can get to. > If the source is unavailable, the software isn't free, regardless of what > theoretica

Re: buildd administration

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You just try to make a point out of buildd.net not having a direct > source link which is completly irelevant imho. Hey, I don't care if there's a direct link or not. I care if the source is available for anyone to go download. If it's availabl

Re: buildd administration

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> Funny, I just did a Google search for > >>> site:www.debian.org cvs repository www.debian.org > >>> and there it was, plain as day. > >> That implies th

Re: buildd administration

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> I don't know of any autobuilders that build packages from sid against > >> build-dependencies in experimental. > > > > I th

Re: buildd administration

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 03:41:06PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > Sure; but again, look at the broader context: if people aren't fixing > > trivial bugs like the gnuplot one, why should anyone else spend time > > worrying about the harder ones? Why haven't you done the appropriate > > NMU of gnuplo

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns wrote: > Sure, getting tetex-3.0 done would've been quicker; but it wouldn't > necessarily have been quick enough -- after all, it's not ready *now* > and there's been six months since sarge's release. And this isn't just > *you*, everyone's in a similar position. I guess you are r

Re: buildd administration

Thimo: I've uploaded an NMU to fix gnuplot bugs 321967 and 330024; this is the context. On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:07:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > >> > "A far-east document is typeset in a certain encoding" doesn't sound like > >> > an RC bug; and therefore not somethi

Re: buildd administration -- TeX related FTBFS

Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope situation will be better soon but I am still struggling why > debiandoc-sgml-doc fails to build nicely. (Yes, I know I can get by by > not checking exit code during build process. But that is not a good fix > I want to do.) Any help is appreciated.

Re: buildd administration -- TeX related FTBFS

Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I realize TeX is tough program to maintain. Thanks to Frank. > > One quick and easy way to avoid TeX related build issues are to avoid > using TeX related tools during build time. So the results will be > Debian only ships documentations in plain te

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns wrote: >> > "A far-east document is typeset in a certain encoding" doesn't sound like >> > an RC bug; and therefore not something that should hold up transitioning >> > to testing. >> The package with the RC bug is debian-reference, which builds documents >> in different languages

Re: buildd administration

Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> > >> > Six months is a lot of time; and experimental should provide you with >> > the space and machine power to handle the rebuilding. >> >> I don't know of any autobuilders that build pack

Re: buildd administration

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > I don't know of any autobuilders that build packages from sid against > build-dependencies in experimental. So that's one problem. Another (mentioned previously) is the case of two packages, A and B that often should be installed t

Re: buildd administration

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > > > Six months is a lot of time; and experimental should provide you with > > the space and machine power to handle the rebuilding. > > I don't know of any autobuilders that build packages from sid against > build-dependencies in e

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:24:39AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> > No, that would be "unsuitable for release". Which is a problem that >> > should either be fixed quickly, or means you're trying to make a big >> > enough change that you should be working out how to get it d

Re: buildd administration -- TeX related FTBFS

Hi, I realize TeX is tough program to maintain. Thanks to Frank. One quick and easy way to avoid TeX related build issues are to avoid using TeX related tools during build time. So the results will be Debian only ships documentations in plain text and HTML. (No PS and no PDF). But is it what w

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > Generally, experimental fits the above role. Unstable's for uploading new > development of packages that will hopefully work, but might turn out not > to. In particular, though, they need to be fixed pretty quickly -- six > months in experimental, and another two so far in

Re: buildd administration

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages >> > *out* of unstable. >> >> Really? So now, unstable

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:24:39AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > No, that would be "unsuitable for release". Which is a problem that > > should either be fixed quickly, or means you're trying to make a big > > enough change that you should be working out how to get it done without > > breaking oth

Re: buildd administration

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Funny, I just did a Google search for >> site:www.debian.org cvs repository www.debian.org >> and there it was, plain as day. > That implies that you already know/suspect it is in cvs. Goswin, wi

Re: buildd administration

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages > > *out* of unstable. > > Really? So now, unstable should be maintained in a releasable state > *too*?

Re: buildd.debian.org (was Re: buildd administration

Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Well, after looking at http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/ , >> I concur that it's as good a general interface to buildd status as >> buildd.net, >> and much better than the http://buildd.debian.org/ interface. > >Where did you find that url? In a random maili

Re: buildd.debian.org (was Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:02:01PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > (The contact addresses and machine up/down statuses are a valuable part of > > buildd.net which *isn't* there, but that's another matter entirely, which > > requires different and additional work.) > The graphs are also no

Re: buildd.debian.org (was Re: buildd administration

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So for various reasons the buildd.net status code is not considered ready > to be integrated on buildd.debian.org, either by its author or by its > maintainer or by Ryan Murray. Fine, I understand. > > Well, after looking at http://buildd.debian.org

Re: buildd administration

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ok, lets take an example: Where is the source thrown at you for >> www.debian.org? > >> It isn't. You have to ask around, get to know or dig deep along the >> links to find cvs.debian.org. > > Funny, I

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:24:39AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Much worse, there are a couple of cases where we had to NMU the > packages, either because the maintainers where inactive, or in one case > because he said "no time here, just go ahead". Except for this one case > this couldn't have b

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> Anthony Towns wrote: >> > If your package isn't going to be suitable for release; it should probably >> > be in experimental instead, which is even autobuilt these days. There's >> > almost no reason to have

Re: buildd administration

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:43:05AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > If your package isn't going to be suitable for release; it should probably > > be in experimental instead, which is even autobuilt these days. There's > > almost no reason to have RC bugs that are open longer

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: >> It sounds to me like what is needed as a tag for bugs that tells QA (you >> post noted that the release team >> would ignore RC bugs on packages not in testing) that it can ignore those >> bugs. > > If your pac

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: >> It sounds to me like what is needed as a tag for bugs that tells QA (you >> post noted that the release team >> would ignore RC bugs on packages not in testing) that it can ignore those >> bugs. > > If your pa

Re: buildd administration

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > It sounds to me like what is needed as a tag for bugs that tells QA (you > post noted that the release team > would ignore RC bugs on packages not in testing) that it can ignore those > bugs. If your package isn't going to be suitable

Re: buildd administration

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm pretty sure I saw him do this already, by noting that it increases the > number of packages that the release and QA teams have to keep track of. Seems to me that packages which aren't in testing should not occupy the release team's time at all. Ju

Re: buildd administration

"Steve Langasek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 03:46:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: You have failed to detail any particular difficulty that this causes, I'm pretty sure I saw him do this already, by noting that it increases the n

Re: buildd.debian.org (was Re: buildd administration

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:23:48AM +, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > (The contact addresses and machine up/down statuses are a valuable part of > buildd.net which *isn't* there, but that's another matter entirely, which > requires different and additional work.) > > However, even though this is o

buildd.debian.org (was Re: buildd administration

So for various reasons the buildd.net status code is not considered ready to be integrated on buildd.debian.org, either by its author or by its maintainer or by Ryan Murray. Fine, I understand. Well, after looking at http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/ , I concur that it's as good a general

Re: buildd administration

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 03:46:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> Anthony Towns writes: > >> > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't > >> > (b) documentin

In-Reply-To [was: Re: buildd administration]

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > This is an omnibus reply. Sorry about the thread-breaking, but I'm on > yet *another* computer, and I can't seem to find a mailer which > respects the In-Reply-To headers from the web pages or lets me add my > own. Off-topic, but Moz Thunderbird in Debian at least does t

Re: buildd administration

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:46:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Even if the current software isn't publically available for whatever > reason (personally, I'm putting my money on "hacked into place over time > and not particularly easy to massage into a form someone else could run," That's one pa

Re: buildd administration

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, lets take an example: Where is the source thrown at you for > www.debian.org? > It isn't. You have to ask around, get to know or dig deep along the > links to find cvs.debian.org. Funny, I just did a Google search for site:www.debian.or

Re: buildd administration

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 06:50:26PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> And when you try you get screamed at and flamed as witnessed in the >> huge buildd flame fest the last time. Iirc some 3000 packages were >> build outside the official buildd netwo

Re: buildd administration

Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > [snip] >> A similar issue I noted in the past is the big number of build failures >> that don't get tagged 'Failed'. I tried working on classifying them, but >> got bored so increadibly fast that I gave up, and decided for

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anthony Towns writes: >> > Requeue requests are part of handling logs... You get a failed log, you >> > analyse it to say "oh, that's a transient error due to other things" >> > then you requeue it...

Re: buildd administration

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> C'mon, this is a free software project. The obvious first step for >>> providing better infrastructure would be to make that infrastructure >>> publically

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:24:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > That sort of information is helpful to tell you when there is a problem, > but that's only the first step. ATM, the corresponding thing would > be to (gosh!) setup a webpage tracking whatever issue you

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> It got proposed because no one was able to give correct explanations >> about why it hadn't been included. > > Heh. I'm almost morbidly curious enough to ask what you think the > "correct" explanation of

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > Then you're not maintaining your packages properly, and you're making > life more difficult for the rest of the project out of spite. Notice that in disagreeing with your statement, I have also gone out of my way to answer the specific questions you asked. Now, can we ex

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anthony Towns writes: >> > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't >> > (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that >> > fact by not h

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 06:50:26PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > And when you try you get screamed at and flamed as witnessed in the > huge buildd flame fest the last time. Iirc some 3000 packages were > build outside the official buildd network across the involved archs at > that time. And

Re: buildd administration

Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>- How can I get information from "inside" a buildd, e.g. temporary files >> created during a failed build. > > First pass answer: you can't. sbuild (tries to) clean up after builds. > > Altern

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:29:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I would like to note that I have made a practical and *new* suggestion > for dealing with some of these problems > (contrary to suggestions that I'm just flaming), because nobody's picked > up on my idea. Well, it's hard to sug

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't > > (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that > > fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed

Re: buildd administration

Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> (BTW, I see #335981 and #336371 haven't received a response since late >>> October; or has raptor been down that entire time, so that you haven't been >>> able to diagnose it further -- it certainly seems down now?) >> >>Upstream is working on #335981 and

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't > (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that > fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed as a supported arch in > the source and ensuring it does not incorrect

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > FTBFS issues are the most common though, as well as the easiest to > resolve; your point would carry more weight if you took the time to fix > yours first. (Looking through -private, I saw someone remark that 1000 > bugs was too many -- we have got 1400 _RC_ bugs at the mo

Re: buildd administration

This is an omnibus reply. Sorry about the thread-breaking, but I'm on yet *another* computer, and I can't seem to find a mailer which respects the In-Reply-To headers from the web pages or lets me add my own. == I would like to note that I have made a practical and *new* suggestion for dealin

Re: buildd administration

Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: [snip] > A similar issue I noted in the past is the big number of build failures > that don't get tagged 'Failed'. I tried working on classifying them, but > got bored so increadibly fast that I gave up, and decided for myself > this should be something the porters shou

Re: buildd administration

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are currently no public build logs for hurd-i386, but we are > working on getting them published on experimentel.ftbfs.de as well. If you can get them into , that would be wonderful. I read that page re

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > Since this point obviously needs to be made clearer, I guess it's time > to have some more rounds of removing packages that have long outstanding > RC bugs. I guess I'll coordinate with the RM team to do this sometime > over Christmas/New Year. (The following comment shou

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > It got proposed because no one was able to give correct explanations > about why it hadn't been included. Heh. I'm almost morbidly curious enough to ask what you think the "correct" explanation of why it hasn't been included is,

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:40:11 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not really convinced that such an approach would have a significant >> effect as long as you're not measuring existing DD's to the same >> standards. Which, as far as

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:24:00 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >An excellent example of this is the publication of the NEW queue. Now >that everyone can see the NEW queue, I don't see any of the big public >criticism about slow processing. I have to disagree here. Things have

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 02:40 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not really convinced that such an approach would have a significant > > effect as long as you're not measuring existing DD's to the same > > standards. Which, as far as I can see, does

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 09:18:28AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:22:24AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > BTW: is there a way to get build failures by mail? especially from the > > architectures which are not visible on buildd.debian.org/PTS like hurd and > > bsd. To

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 12:47:59PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:27:10 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Where should I best complain for your NM application to be > > cancelled? > > Err, so if a NM candidate speaks as openly as some DD's do, > t

Re: buildd administration

Le samedi 10 décembre 2005 à 11:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:56:24PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > How many developer resignations will you need to understand inaction > > from people at key positions sucks the fun out of things in a worse way? > > Yeah, thre

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:27:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:52:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> > >I also see the keyring's been updated earlier this week, including >> > >both a replacement key for Horms from late last month, and Chi

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:22:24AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > If a package is failing to build or to function on some architecture, > > your job as that package's maintainer is see if it can be fixed (talking > > to porters and/or upstream if it's

Re: buildd administration

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > If a package is failing to build or to function on some architecture, > your job as that package's maintainer is see if it can be fixed (talking > to porters and/or upstream if it's beyond your skills) BTW: is there a way to get build failures by mail? e

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:54:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > In addition, I would point out that your method of "supporting" the > package amounts to documenting its inadequacy and then doing nothing. No, the issue is one of resolving RC issues: in this case by: (a) seeing if the FTBF

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:37:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > Easy: the best tools we've got to judge whether buildds are keeping up > > are the buildd graphs which indicate that with the exception of m68k > > and arm (hrm, and possibly hppa), all our ports are d

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:44:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anthony Towns writes: >> >> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371. In fact, scm has *never* >> >> supported s390; >> >scm |5d9-4.1 | unstable | s390 >> And yet, it didn't actua

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: >> So why was the request ignored for a month? Why did my email result >> in no action, twice, not even a response? > > I've told you what I'd need to answer that question already. > >> Perhaps you don't know the answer to these questions. But then how >> can you so surely

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:44:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > >> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371. In fact, scm has *never* > >> supported s390; > >scm |5d9-4.1 | unstable | s390 > And yet, it didn't actually run successfully on s390.

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > Requeue requests are part of handling logs... You get a failed log, you > > analyse it to say "oh, that's a transient error due to other things" > > then you requeue it... If that analysis comes from r

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: >> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371. In fact, scm has *never* >> supported s390; > >scm |5d9-4.1 | unstable | s390 And yet, it didn't actually run successfully on s390. Support is not just a matter of compiling. >> when I took over maintenance

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > The job of the buildd admin is to make sure packages are built. Mostly > that's automated, which is great, which means the buildd admin's job is > mostly to keep the automation working. So when the build admin is not doing that job, what should we do? Thomas -- To UN

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:25:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anthony Towns writes: >> > The major task of buildd maintenance (aiui) is handlings logs though, >> > and that's certainly what was being complained about earlier. >> No. What I was complaining abou

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:24:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > No, not in the least. That's a good start, but for it to be an > excellent start, it needs to work like the BTS, and be something that > the relevant volunteers themselves read and pay attention to. It doesn't actually need an

Re: buildd administration

> The job of the buildd admin is to make sure packages are built. Mostly > that's automated, which is great, which means the buildd admin's job is > mostly to keep the automation working. Dan was a really good buildd admin. Maybe he knows what he's talking about. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:11:12PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > The majority of "handling" logs is monkeywork - very easy, mostly > automated. The main jobs of the buildd admin are to The job of the buildd admin is to make sure packages are built. Mostly that's automated, which is great, whi

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:25:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > The major task of buildd maintenance (aiui) is handlings logs though, > > and that's certainly what was being complained about earlier. > No. What I was complaining about was totally ignoring of requ

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:24:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > An excellent example of this is the publication of the NEW queue. Now > that everyone can see the NEW queue, I don't see any of the big public > criticism about slow processing. Well, that's not very interesting, because the p

Re: buildd administration

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> C'mon, this is a free software project. The obvious first step for >> providing better infrastructure would be to make that infrastructure >> publically available for anyone to download, play with, hack

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:19:46AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> I'm not saying that this all needs to be publicly logged. I don't give >> a rat's ass whether it is or not. But please don't stand there saying >> that the process is completely transparent. > > I don'

Re: buildd administration

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Please stop assuming wrong facts. > >> As I already stated several times before: Ryan was offered to integrate >> the buildd.net software. He declined with the argument that all >> information is already

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > The major task of buildd maintenance (aiui) is handlings logs though, > and that's certainly what was being complained about earlier. No. What I was complaining about was totally ignoring of requeue requests sent to the @buildd.debian.org advertised addresses. Thomas

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns writes: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:16:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anthony Towns writes: >> > That's non-sensical. Everything the buildds do is logged pretty much >> > immediately onto http://buildd.debian.org/, which also provides long >> > running statistics on how

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:46:50AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:19:46AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I'm not saying that this all needs to be publicly logged. I don't give > > a rat's ass whether it is or not. But please don't stand there saying > > that the pro

Re: buildd administration

Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not really convinced that such an approach would have a significant > effect as long as you're not measuring existing DD's to the same > standards. Which, as far as I can see, does not happen. A procedure is in place for developers to be ejected fr

Re: buildd administration

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 23:49 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : >> How many more years are we going to waste time with this hysteria before >> realising it doesn't achieve anything but "rapidly sucking the fun out >> of things"? > > How many develo

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:48:13PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > There is absolutely zero documentation on how the buildd network works. If the documentation's insufficient, ask politely for help. buildd.debian.org points you at wanna-build and its svn repo, which has some reasonably extensive

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:27:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:52:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > >I also see the keyring's been updated earlier this week, including > > >both a replacement key for Horms from late last month, and Chip's > > >requested updates. >

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:56:24PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 23:49 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > > How many more years are we going to waste time with this hysteria before > > realising it doesn't achieve anything but "rapidly sucking the fun out > > of thin

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:19:46AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I'm not saying that this all needs to be publicly logged. I don't give > a rat's ass whether it is or not. But please don't stand there saying > that the process is completely transparent. I don't believe I said that. I don't b

Re: buildd administration

Erinn Clark writes: > Surely flaming people on mailing lists as a way to get things done is not > something people want to encourage in NMs... right? Right. After all, as we all know, no DD would ever do such a thing. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject

Re: buildd administration

Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please stop assuming wrong facts. > As I already stated several times before: Ryan was offered to integrate > the buildd.net software. He declined with the argument that all > information is already available on buildd.d.o. That's a clear sign that

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:08:55PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: > > Where is the buildd.net software located? I poked around on the site but > > I couldn't find it except for the update-buildd.net script. > (Replying to myself after getting an answer on IRC from Ingo...) > The short summary to my ans

Re: buildd administration

* Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 12:45 -0500]: > * Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:09 17:48 +0100]: > > Le vendredi 09 d?cembre 2005 ? 12:07 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : > > > Ingo's burnt a fair number of bridges wrt buildd issues; I'm sorry, > > > but I don't really

Re: buildd administration

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Setting up a buildd system do not require extra privileges from the >Debian project, as far as I know. Any Debian developer with his >public key in the keyring can sign uploads. and get threats from the current buildd administrator to "mak

  1   2   >