RE: notifications from buildds?
Neil Roeth wrote:
>
> That strikes me as irresponsible; why should it be the buildd
> maintainer's job to monitor your packages? They should make
> sure the buildds are working properly and are kept up to date,
> nothing more.
We look through build logs and make sure that we're not signing and uploading
something that's obviously broken (like, say, a package with no binaries in it,
because the makefile ignores compiler segfaults, and debian/rules carries on
blindly). If we're doing that sort of thing anyway, we may as well be looking
into a few other things like missing build-deps and other bugs.
That said, as far as I can tell, most buildd maintainers (unless they're having
a really boring/slow day, and are looking for something to occupy their time)
will wait for a couple of days before reporting FTBFS bugs on a package. During
this time, we hope that the maintainer will notice the failure and fix it
without having to be told about it. :)
Compiler ICEs are the most obvious "failure that isn't quite a failure", and are
almost always an arch-specific breakage (though not always), and we'll get
around to investigating those bugs eventually, but maintainer help is always
appreciated. It's also nice if the maintainer can experiment with dropping
optimisation, etc, to make their package build, while we go and investigate the
actual ICE and bug the gcc maintainers. :)
... Adam Conrad
--
backup [n] (bak'up): The duplicate copy of crucial data that no one
bothered to make; used only in the abstract.
1024D/C6CEA0C9 C8B2 CB3E 3225 49BB 5ED2 0002 BE3C ED47 C6CE A0C9
Reply to: