On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:19:25AM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:12:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > - hppa: one buildd, keeps up with package volume, but no backup buildd and > > gdb seems to kill its kernel (yay); one porter machine. > The "gdb kills sarti" issue shouldn't be an issue once it's upgraded > to sarge and running a kernel that actually works... Sure -- but it is an example of why we should have buildd redundancy for our architectures. All the guys who work on the existing buildds are great, and neither of the "last minute" buildd failures really hurt the release in the end; but it did mean things were a bit more urgent than they really ought to have been, and there's always the possibility that a buildd has a problem that *doesn't* get addressed in a timely manner... > The lack of backup buildd is simply because nobody has gone and set one > up, it's not like we're lacking beefy hardware. Same with a porter > machine. Sure. Nevertheless, no one has set up that second buildd, which means we're still in that "sarti dying is an urgent problem" zone. > > The second most significant area of concern, for me, is having people being > > proactive about dealing with per-architecture build failures. There's no > > particular reason that should be the buildd admins' or the release team's > > area of responsibility, either; all it requires is people who know what > > they're doing to file sensible bug reports without gratuitously duplicating > > efforts, and people who know the architectures to help the maintainers sort > > out bugs. > Easier access to the information would help this. Trawling the web > interface isn't my idea of fun, but if the fail logs for hppa hit my mailbox > I would be more inclined to help... Well, it's not mail, but I think jvw's pages are a good start. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature