Re: [buildd] Action plan to get buildds getting online again
Ingo Jürgensmann dixit:
> To clarify things: with "re-building toolchain" I meant to really re-build the
> toolchain on real iron, although we already have those packages built. At least
> libc6, binutils & gcc. I feel a little bit more safe when I know that we run
> safe on real hardware. :-)
That’s semi-pointless. But if you do *not* use DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck
during these builds, we can get possibly valuable data. And the maintai‐
ners, porters and upstream can inspect those.
I’m concentrating on getting stuff up and running, while not kicking
quality’s arse totally. (I believe I have pretty hard package build
standards, even here.) But, sure. I think we complement each other
then.
(Semi-pointless because, even if you binNMU the toolchain packages,
my next upload will revert that again. But when eventually all our
patches will be included in the packages in unstable, so we don’t
need to build them for unreleased, a buildd can pick them up, which
would be just as fine.)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Darwinism never[…]applied to wizardkind. There's a more than fair amount of[…]
stupidity in its gene-pool[…]never eradicated[…]magic evens the odds that way.
It's[…]harder to die for us than[…]muggles[…]wonder if, as technology[…]better
[…]same will[…]happen there too. Dursleys' continued existence indicates so.
Reply to: