[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I386 buildd doesn't do non-us

>>>>> "James" == James Troup <james@nocrew.org> writes:

    James> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.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[1].  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?

Reply to: