On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:56:30AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 06:13:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes: > >> >> Could you please stay with the facts instead playing word games by citing > >> >> different things in a manner that fits best your word play? > >> >> Yet I've not seen any real answer to the original posters problem. Just bad > >> >> excuses as yours. > >> > You talk about non-responsiveness from the mipsel buildd admin, and then > >> > you conclude that James is the root of the problem. How does that > >> > follow? > >> Does Ryan even get the mail? Doesn't James control where the mail goes > >> to? > > WTF, you're accusing James of keeping Ryan from getting emails about buildd > > problems? How paranoid is *that*? > Truefully I can't say what happens to the mails. Since noone seems to > reply to any of them they could accidentally end up in /dev/null just > as any other place. I don't think it is paranoid to consider a faulty > mail routing when none of the mails are knwon to have arrived. > I didn't and don't accuse James of willfully keeping anyone from > getting the mails but accidents do happen. > If someone got a reply to his mail then speak up so we know it worked > at least at some point. I've gotten replies from various buildd maintainers on occasion in reply to requeue requests, etc. The feedback is nice to have when it happens and I appreciate their effort in replying, but I'm not stuck on it so log as the work gets done. FWIW, the s390 buildd admin (Gerhard Tonn is the official contact @buildd.debian.org) tends to be among the quickest to address requeue issues in my experience, but I don't think he's ever acked my emails about these -- there's definitely no correlation between email acknowledgements and fixed packages. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature