[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [buildd] wanna-build

Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Hi,


>> Another week passes and we still don't have wanna-build access.

Did someone prod buildd team about that?

>> Options:
>> * 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
>>    w-b there.)
>>  * 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?

-ports is seen as a staging area and has the synchronisation with
wanna-build already...

> We'll have to make an effort, though. Shall I set up a weekly cronjob?

Did you try to prod buildd-team@b.d.o already?

>> * 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.

While it may look like this, I think it's just that Ryan Murray
currently had other stuff to worry about...

>> Issues:
>> * 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).

Apparantly there are mirror considerations to get/stay into the archive,
though that is up to ftp-master.

>> * 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?

I guess it's more an issue with binNMUs for transitions and the like.
AFAIK debian-ports has some experience with that...

> Coordinating with -release ...I clearly remember the help and advice I
> got when asking about ways to run testing-m68k. Thanks, but no thanks.

You do realise that the current Release Team has different members?

>> * 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?

A mail can get lost or the processing can be delayed, AFAICS you don't
know the status at all?

> Has there _any_ answer been forthcoming from buildd-team at all? Any
> indication that someone read your mails?

It might not be bad to contact neuro on IRC if you did not get any
response on your mail yet...



Reply to: