Re: Description of tasks
Simon Huggins <huggie@earth.li> writes:
> Hiya Debian,
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:28:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Simon Huggins <huggie@earth.li> writes:
>> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:03:23PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >> Le ven, 16/07/2004 à 13:51 +0100, Martin Michlmayr a écrit :
>> >> > * Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2004.bluespice.org> [2004-07-16 14:42]:
>> >> > > I won't document wanna-build/buildd/sbuild, because I'm not a buildd
>> >> > > admin
>> >> > You won't or you cannot?
>> >> > Anyway, I think it is pretty obvious by now to anyone following this
>> >> > list that you're not really interested in contributing.
>> >> Oh, sure. Setting up buildd.net was not a contribution. That's probably
>> >> why I have to go there several times a week to find out information
>> >> that's not on buildd.debian.org.
>> > What sort of information is on buildd.net and not on buildd.debian.org?
>> The way the information is presented is different and the graphs are
>> unique (i.e. a brief history of the data from buildd.d.o).
>
> Yes it splits out the graphs which is possibly useful. Nothing that
> can't be generated from the /stats/ bits of buildd.debian.org though
> right?
It is generated from the wanna-build stats available from buildd.d.o
(and debian-amd64.alioth.d.o).
> It also seems to have grown some arbitrary voting script. Nice. Is it
> going to have full slashdot news soon?
Huh? Something new? Fun.
>> You can't see what the "Needs-build" was yesterday on buildd.d.o but
>> you can on buildd.net. That often shows problems that aren't aparent
>> from buildd.d.o at all.
>
> So fold this stuff into the buildd.d.o code or make www.buildd.net
Feel free to talk Ryan into it. His comment was that "all the info is
already there". Change his mind. Ingo didn't prevent that from
hapening, Ryan did.
> better in a mature way but don't just cut out architectures for random
> reasons.
Its not random.
The pages and graphs were made to display the status of the archs and
track down problems. Tracking problems is quite useless if the buildd
admin can't be reached to fix the problems or update the reason for
the problems. Its also a real waste of money.
When the decision was made the bandwith requirement was 3GB traffic
per arch and month. Meanwhile the amount was reduced to about 200 MB
per arch and month but its still bandwith someone has to pay.
Change their minds or get another buildd added for the arch with an
admin that cooperates. Ingo is willing to add more archs given that
there is some cooperation from the other side.
> Simon.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: