Re: [buildd] wanna-build
Another week passes and we still don't have wanna-build access.
* move to debian-ports
* already hosting kfreebsd and hurd
* already have support for incoming
* gave me access to buildd_m68k as well as my own account
on the machine (I was playing with a possible etch-m68k
* seem responsive
* I haven't contacted them about this yet
No idea how easy this would be to set up, bit what's the basic difference
between -ports and host our own?
* host our own
Looks like we'll have to do that, in the interim. How we keep the
databases more or less synchronized with the main one is what I'm not
clear about. Just pick up new needs-build state changes from the main
database, and handle everything else (failed, dep-wait, uploaded,
installed) locally? Except for installed that might be not too hard to do.
* continue on at b.d.o
* I grow weary :)
We'll have to make an effort, though. Shall I set up a weekly cronjob?
* contact leader@
Definitely. I see this as the cabal dragging their feet, hoping we just go
away. Seems to be the Debian Way these days.
* The main issue I see with moving is the perception that we will or
should lose ArchQualification and get dropped from sid. (Maybe we
should, but that should be a separate conversation.)
What else can we be dropped from? Seriously - the project needs to take a
decision on whether it would like to keep boasting about supporting the
widest range of architectures possible, and then deliver on that
commitment, or revert back to just another intel-only distribution (and
please shut up about portability).
* Coordinating with debian-release so that give-backs and dep-waits get
set in the new db.
Give-back gets set in our own db because our buildds talk to it directly.
Resetting dep-waits to needs-build should be part of the logic of the
database server, no?
Coordinating with -release ...I clearly remember the help and advice I got
when asking about ways to run testing-m68k. Thanks, but no thanks.
* Coordinating with buildd-team to preserve as much status as possible
during the transition, then deleting the old db afterwards. (Which
would be more work that fixing the current access, I should think.)
Coordinating with buildd-team - funny notion indeed. Why would they care,
if they are unwilling or unable to act on the initial request, evidently?
Why sell it as a 'move', anyway? We're just getting a backup system in
place, for as long as the buildd team takes to retrieve their head from
whatever dark place they stuck it. With their established track record in
handling buildd access for m68k, that cannot be taken as moving away from
Has there _any_ answer been forthcoming from buildd-team at all? Any
indication that someone read your mails?
Sorry, but the only practical solution that I see is running our own
backup database, and keep bugging b.d.o in the vain hope that someone,
sometime, will listen.