On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:10:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > I've sent messages to various arch@buildd.debian.org addresses many > > times for various reasons, and they have all always been ignored. > Me too, for values of ignored that include "may have resulted in some > action, but never got a reply email". > I think that we need BTS pseudo-packages for the autobuilders. I'm not sure that would help much; indeed, in the common case (package needs a simple requeue, buildd admin would have taken care of it in due course anyway, sender isn't worried about a lack of reply as long as things are fixed), it would seem to impose a lamentable amount of overhead -- time that could otherwise be spent on the never-ending task of buildd/port maintenance. The BTS overhead is justified for packages, since any developer can NMU a package; as long as the buildds for most ports are one-maintainer-per-arch, I don't see that having a list in the BTS of packages to be requeued gives us anything over the present situation. In the case of mails sent to <arch>@buildd.debian.org about issues that go unfixed for long periods, it would be nice to know what the story is. And personally, since I send a lot of these mails about packages with RC issues, I think more feedback from the buildd maintainers would help me to know better when these emails are helpful and when they're a distraction; but in the absence of feedback, I'll continue to assume my current approach is ok... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature