Background: The sparc buildd machine vore is struggling to keep up with the volume of uploads to sid, auric is not acting as a buildd due to disk problems. The sparc buildd maintainer has not been filing ftbfs bugs for over 6 months, and has left packages in the "building" state for 3 months when they just needed requeued due to dependency issues that were fixed within a day of the original upload. (Also, packages are never being marked "not for us" so the buildd machine keeps wasting time trying to build and rebuild them.) I volunteered a machine of mine (twice as fast as vore) to act as a buildd with myself doing the buildd machine maintenance and uploading. No reply was received, I later found out one was sent but the sparc buildd maintainer directly refused a request of the dpl to resend the reply. I was building packages in a pbuilder environment and uploading when I felt appropriate. The sparc buildd maintainer insisted that I stop doing so, claiming that I was causing problems for the security team. He refused to elaborate or discuss this claim. I emailed the dpl asking what I should do in this situation, and he never answered my direct question. When I continued to sign and upload packages, the sparc buildd maintainer threatened to make sure I could not do it. Months have passed, the sparc "needs-built" queue is rarely if ever empty anymore, and many packages are sitting the "building" stage waiting for appropriate action on the part of the buildd maintainer. Questions: Should I build, sign, and upload packages where I understand why the buildd failed, and believe that a rebuild would succeed? Should I build, sign, and upload packages where I understand why the buildd failed, and it was due to a problem with the buildd that would need to be fixed before a rebuild would succeed? (Examples of this are where the sbuild environment was corrupted by a broken package, and /proc not being mounted in the sbuild chroot.) -- Blars Blarson email@example.com http://www.blars.org/blars.html With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.
Description: PGP signature