Re: buildd machines (was Re: Canonical and Debian)
In article <20050608025047.GH7046@mauritius.dodds.net> you write:
>On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:13:10AM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
>> In article <20050607091204.GA7046@mauritius.dodds.net> email@example.com =
>> >- sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the
>> > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter
>> > machine.
>> Second faster machine has been down, reportedly with disk problems.
>Hardware flaw. (RAID array can only be reinitialized from Solaris.)
Admin flaw in not being able to do that. Alternate replace with
storage that does not have that problem. I'm willing to donate a
50-gig drive with spud braket that should fit internally.
>> Even faster replacement machine (with more redunancy) has been
>> offered. Apparently waiting coordination between doner (who is a DD)
>> and Debian System Admin team.
>The offer in question is to take us down to *zero* build machines, and then,
>if everything goes right, replace it with an SMP system that would pass for
The only reason I've heard of for that is space at the hosting
facility. Have they even been asked if they would be willing to
continue to host vore (an ultra-30, PC tower size) either temporarily
while the new machine is set up or permentantly?
>> Offers of an addional buildd have been refused. Offers of addional
>> hardware have been ignored or refused.
>Refused, or not acknowledged? If they were refused, what reason was given?
The initial responce to my offer of a buildd with me acting as
maintainer was apparently refused by my spam filters. When given an
address that would bypass the filter, the buildd maintainer refused to
send the message even when asked to do so politly by the Debian
So, if you want a reaon for the refusal you'll have to ask him
I made more offers to the hardware-donations page today. I wasn't
specific on the sparc stuff, but hopefully they'll let me know what
kind of stuff is being looked for, if any.
Blars Blarson firstname.lastname@example.org
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.