Re: status of buildds?

[Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>]

* Ingo Juergensmann 

| On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
| > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
| > > Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
| > > > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
| > > > autobuilding and do it themselves; all the software is free software.
| > [..]
| > > We did that last year for m68k, mips, mipsel and alpha and it produced
| > > a great flame since some machines where hosted by non DDs and none of
| > > them were approved by the debian admin team. The opinions (including
| > > an RM too) expressed in that flame resulted in the effort to help
| > > archs with backlogs with extra buildds to shut down to comply with
| > > their wishes.
| > As you well know, the problem was that the buildds were run by
| > non-developers for whom we have no trust relationship, not that they 
| > were being run by a developer unofficially.
| 
| So, you call me not trustworthy, although it was *me* to first help out m68k
| when kullervo was unable to keep up with package building? 

You are not a DD, so Debian does not have a trust relationship with
you.  It has nothing to do whether you are trustworthy or not, it is
about whether you have the trust.  Since you're not a DD, you don't
have that trust.

(And yes, I think it's bad that the m68k port seems to be so dependent
on somebody who isn't a DD.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are      : :' :
                                                                      `. `' 
                                                                        `-