On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:43:31AM -0600, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:02:17AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I don't think people would like it if their package stayed in incoming > > for multiple weeks because there's a backlog on some architecture. > > Neither i. This is why i would like to receive baklogs mailed to maintainer if > autobuild fails. But i would like to receive backlogs even for pre-autobuilds, > so that i could fix the problem, contact the upstream etc. Uh, I think we're not speaking the same English here. When I say "this architecture has a backlog", I mean "this architecture can't keep up with building". You can get the logs, they're at http://buildd.debian.org/ -- mails to package maintainers are superfluous; non-buildd people shouldn't be bothered with such stuff, as it isn't their problem in 99% of the cases. > BTW, i think that the correct workflow would be: > Move package from incoming to autobuild. If all architectures build, continue > (as before this change); else, if not builded but is not upstrea/maintainer > fault, continue (as before this change). Else reject the package. > > > Unstable is there for that kind of things. And to detect other kinds of > > bugs, too. If you're going to keep packages in incoming like this, > > people won't be able to test it until it's built on all architectures. > > If we stay as it is, we'll continue to get slowed by badly built > packages/softwares. So we slow the system down even more by holding packages for no real reason? I fail to see how that would help. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Description: Digital signature