Re: I386 buildd doesn't do non-us
>>>>> "James" == James Troup <email@example.com> writes:
James> Sam Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I thought the buildd for i386 was outside the US. I'm
>> surprised to find it apparently doesn't build non-us.
James> No, it doesn't and won't. The i386 auto-builder does
James> almost nothing in main; never mind non-US. I, for one,
James> certainly can not be bothered to spend the time needed to
James> setup a non-US based i386 auto-builder. If you want to,
James> feel free. Until then, I suggest you stop ``testing'' the
James> auto-builder and just upload i386 versions (since you
James> clearly have i386 machines available).
I'm curious why it doesn't build non-us; I got the impression from
talking to someone on IRC (neuro? or someone else setting up an Alpha
buildd) that it was a simple config option. I'm assuming my
impression was incorrect. If it is just one config option, then it
definitely seems worth setting, but if not I understand why you don't
want to take the time.
I consider it a bug if there is not a working buildd for both main and
non-us/main for any released arch. I don't believe we require our
developers to work on any arch, so we should support autobuilding any
package that is part of Debian. I respect that we are all volunteers
and understand that fixing some bugs may be very low priority--perhaps
even so low that we never get around to it. And I can agree that i386 buildds easily fall into this category.
I still contend that my actions were justified based on the
information I had at the time. I suggest that your point might better
have been made by simply stating that no, I was wrong and that it
would take non-trivial work to set up.
Do you really want me to set up a non-us buildd? I'm in the US. It
seems reasonable for me to export my packages, but some might object
if I started exporting packages before we hear back on legal issues?