On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:44:40PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > I agree with both of the following proposals: > * There's a defined set of archs that we will not delay DSA's for, and them > becoming available later will lead to them being installed into the > archive without a -2 followup mail issued. > * There should be more insight into the queues and functioning of the > buildd's by the security team, similar to that available for the regular > archive. > That would resolve the most imporant problems and therefore make it much > easier to decide to include a new slower architecture. Sounds reasonable proposal to me. What kind of insight do you need? IJ's udpate-buildd.net scripts provide some insight (see the bottom of page for example on of two of the three buildd's we have:) http://unstable.buildd.net/index-armel.html It shows that the buildd is up, running and conntected to internet, and what it's building and for how long. It does not tell if the build is stuck or spinning to infinity, but that should be quite rare for packages that managed to get to stable (and thus needing security uploads). -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature