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

Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.

* Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [2004-02-12 03:08]:
> > 10 machines tend to have more failures by number, but that don't result in
> > bringing down the whole port. Well, you know that of course... nothing new
> > here... ;)
> Same goes for admins. 1 admin can be sick or busy working on
> security. With 10 admins most certainly one will allways have some
> spare time, not be sick, be in a good mood.

The big question is whether having many people per arch actually
scales.  As you know, I'm not a buildd admin myself so I'm speaking
based on 2nd hand knowledge, but I have heard one argument for few
admins which I found pretty convincing.  In many cases, FTBFS are the
same across different architectures (e.g. missing build-depends).  If
there is one person who deals with 5 architectures, then he'll see the
problem on all arches, report it once and know that it has been
reported.  If there are 10 people, everyone has to look at the BTS to
find out whether it has been reported already, therefore wasting time.
Still, redundancy is certainly good, and I have e.g. seen buildd
maintainers take over other arches while someone is on holidays.

> Martin please do ask Ryan to look into his no_auto_build list and
> similar to see if his buildds are excluding qt-x11-free. Or if the

no_auto_build in /etc/sbuild.conf is empty on both remake and repeat
if this is where this is defined.

Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: