Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
In article <[🔎] 878ybr5gie.fsf@becket.becket.net> tb@becket.net writes:
>So I think it's a shame that we now have fewer buildd machines than
>But that means, i think, that what we want is more buildd's, that meet
>the security concerns of the people in charge of buildds.
>
>Surely we have enough money to buy some. We have a good idea of which
>archs are having trouble keeping up: arm, mips, mipsel, sometimes
>ia64 and m68k. Maybe that's not entirely right, but again, the buildd
>people should know which ones need the most attention.
Rather than the machines themselves, I think it is more a problem of
secure locations to house them with power, air condiontioning, network
access, and physical access for either a DD maintining the particular
machine or a DSA team member that has the time needed. Older machines
may be near the end of thier life. Strange machines may require
specialized knolage to maintain.
Also there is a need for DDs willing to run the buildd, sign the
uploads, file ftbfs bugs, and manipulate the buildd status of
packages. The latter two are tasks that could be done by a buildd NM,
with the manipulations being sponsored by a DD, without compromising
the Debian archives.
--
Blars Blarson blarson@blars.org
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.
Reply to: