Re: armel port status report
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:12:47PM +0000, Martin Guy wrote:
> plus 5 that are not currently flagged to be built on arm* architectures.
please file bugs against the respectice packages if those are mistakes.
> port had dropped to 90.47%, if I remember correctly. From today the
> buildd admin has stopped posting the necessary stats to
> unstable.buildd.net, so no one can check there any more (all figures
> are zeroes)
That web site just needs to change to use the w-b database from official
debian.
> If I understand correctly, the fastest way to improve the mainline
> armel port would be to schedule the packages for building that are
> known to work on armel, but whose binaries are missing:
Well you don't understand correctly. There is already hundreds of
out-of-date packages scheduled for building so scheduling uncompiled
packages is pointless until we get more buildd's. Getting more buildd's
is also being worked on, so don't worry.
> Or, if I'm wasting my time trying to improve the efficacy of the
> buildds, which is where the greatest win currently lies, please feel
> free to suggest how else I should spend my time on this project.
*FIXING* bugs and submitting patches to BTS. See ltrace as a great
example what would be really usefull. Just listing problems or filing
bugreports (without patchehs) does not get the port anywhere fast...
--
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
Reply to: