David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Additionally, this hints at hidden problems of this architecture which - in
> the worst case - might lead to Debians sudden inability to support a
> really-stable release on this architecture. Regardless of the outcome of the
> post-Vancouver fallout,
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, that's not *necessairly* true. If the buildd maintainer is also
> part of DSA/ftpmasters (as seems to often be the case, and might even be
> required by some unwritten law) then it'd be possible for them to
> disable the account doing the uploadin
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
> > mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
> > and upload packages to help the build with its backlo
* Henning Makholm
| Scripsit Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > Henning Makholm wrote:
|
| >> If a DD has a machine with cpu cycles to spend on an architecture
| >> that's lagging behind, what's to stop them from just beginning to
| >> build packages and upload them?
|
| > It needs e.g. to t
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 06:20, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
> > mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
> > and upload packages to help the build wit
Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
> mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
> and upload packages to help the build with its backlog and lack of
> requeueing.
So? A buildd maintainer do
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Why don't you start building packages yourselves? You do have access
>to the hardware, right? It's supposed to be blindingly fast, right?
Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It is possible, either you setup you own w-b or do it by hand, the later
> > > is a time consuming process. And you will generate a l
Scripsit Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> If a DD has a machine with cpu cycles to spend on an architecture
>> that's lagging behind, what's to stop them from just beginning to
>> build packages and upload them?
> It needs e.g. to take P-a-s into account, for example.
Scripsit Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:27:34PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
>> build .debs from publicly available source packages, don't they? They
>> upload to the upload queues that are av
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is possible, either you setup you own w-b or do it by hand, the later
> > is a time consuming process. And you will generate a lot of noise with
> > rejected packages.
> Yes, it's
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> > > blocked by the w-b admins.
> > Why don't you start building packages yourselves? You do have access
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> > blocked by the w-b admins.
> Why don't you start building packages yourselves? You do have access
> to the hardware, right? It's supposed to be blind
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is possible, either you setup you own w-b or do it by hand, the later
> is a time consuming process. And you will generate a lot of noise with
> rejected packages.
Yes, it's better to do nothing than to do only part of the job.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:12:51PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Looking at the stats[1], the amount of compiled packages seems to be a
> > blocker: 250-300 need-build packages. At approximatly 9000 source packages,
> > around 8820 must be built to s
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:27:34PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
> build .debs from publicly available source packages, don't they? They
> upload to the upload queues that are avaiable to every DD, don't they?
They often build
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> > blocked by the w-b admins.
>
> How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
> build .debs from publicly available source pac
Scripsit Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> blocked by the w-b admins.
How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
build .debs from publicly available source packages, don't they? They
upload to th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:12:51PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> Looking at the stats[1], the amount of compiled packages seems to be a
> blocker: 250-300 need-build packages. At approximatly 9000 source packages,
> around 8820 must be built to satisfy the 98% barrier. Looking at longer
> timefr
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:08, Frank Küster wrote:
> >(exactly because of arches like s390 who
> > should be able to reach tier-1 easily, but really have no reason to be on
> > the mirror network).
>
> But it does *not* say that s390 is likely to be among the released
> architectures. And I do no
20 matches
Mail list logo
