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

Re: [buildd] wanna-build

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 10:35:13PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:

> > No idea how easy this would be to set up, bit what's the basic difference 
> > between -ports and host our own?
> Should be very easy for them, they already support to other archs and
> answered me about etch-m68k the same day or so.
> >> * 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.
> It's actually a fair amount of work if you want to include incoming
> support (which debian-ports already has).

Lesson learned from previous years: it would be nice to have at least a
fallback solution because it happened several times already that w-b access
was revoked and needed weeks and months to get re-established again. 
Running our own buildd would mean that we don't need to rely on others to
switch from master to fallback w-b. OTOH, if debian-ports is better
integrated with master w-b, it would be a better option because of that. But
it would put an extra work load on the debian-ports team each time we
It would be nice to have a fallback working within 24-48 hrs when master w-b
becomes unavailable, though. 

> >> * 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.
> Sadly.

Contacting leader@ is - as always - difficult as you put extra pressure on
the person with whom we want to work together. It's an escalation step that
doesn't really help because the DPL can't force someone into doing
*anything*. I think that's a real huge drawback in the constitution and
should be changed in the long run. IMHO the DPL needs to make decisions and
to take action, even if that would mean revoking a delegation. 
Anyway, I believe that the DPL should know of stumbling blocks within the
project and this is a major one for one of its (more or less official)
ports. So he should be at least informed.

> >> 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.)

Well, for most users and developers we already dropped out of sight anyway. 
I made a blog post on this topic last year

> > 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).
> Preaching to the choir ... brother!

IMHO the decision already has been made with the Vancouver Massacre... 
And in fact, as a PowerPC user too, I got the impression that only Intel
compatible archs are well supported. Everything else is not. Being it not
working apps, buggy apps, slow apps or just the random "I don't have access
to that arch and can't help you with debugging this bug report" DD from time
to time. 

> > 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 
> > Debian?
> > Has there _any_ answer been forthcoming from buildd-team at all? Any  
> > indication that someone read your mails?
> Yes, Ryan responded once with a request for the actual keys, but that
> was it. No replies after that (his mailed bounced a few times though).

All these communication issues are really bad and IMHO unprofessional. There
is no single way to contact people. Sometimes there are new email aliases
that nobody seems to know but a few, sometimes someone prefers contact by
mail, sometimes via IRC and such. There's no constant way to contact
Sadly rt.debian.org seems limited to only some teams and not everyone likes

> > 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.
> My preferred solution is to try to move to debian-ports, mainly because
> it's already debugged and working. 
> Any other buildd guys with opinions? ;)

See above... ;)

Ciao...                //        Fon: 0381-2744150 
      Ingo           \X/         SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de

gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc

Reply to: