Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:44:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd
> > False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one
> > buildd host, but with the exception of Roman, we all have (or have had)
> > more than one buildd host under our responsability.
> I meant that there were buildds to which only one admin had access.
Ah, that way.
Most buildds have two or three admins that can log and handle things.
TTBOMK, there is no single person that has access to /all/ m68k buildd
hosts, but that isn't really needed.
It could be the case that there are hosts to which only one person has
access, yes (I'm not quite sure about cts' machines); but I would
consider that a bug.
> ISTR seeing comments from m68k admins in the recent past that they
> would have to check with Stephen Marenka about missing packages, for
> instance; but maybe this was longer ago than I realized.
We don't generally touch eachother's hosts for non-urgent matters, but
that's just a matter of courtesy. Also, it could be that the particular
person you were talking to did not have access to the buildd host in
question; it doesn't necessarily mean only Stephen had access.
As a recent example, to fix the XFree86 -11 mess, Adam Conrad and (to a
lesser extent) I logged in to most buildd hosts and fixed the chroots;
after we were done, there were only two of them left to go, IIRC.
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
-- with thanks to fortune