Re: [buildd] wanna-build
Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Hi,
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...
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: