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

Re: First pass all buildds before entering unstable

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: