[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.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:11:43PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Furthermore, what should our expectations be when one of the port
> maintainers in question has a standing objection to anyone NMUing his
> packages?

As RM, my policy has been to not be worried about the buildds as long as
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week.png stays above around about
95%. It's appropriate to show mild concern for arches that aren't bunched
in the top group (which is arm, m68k and mips* atm), and appropriate
to check what's going on if an arch drops below 95% and start worrying
about other action (like modifying the testing scripts to ignore out of
date binaries on that arch, pestering the buildd maints, and eventually
dropping the arch from being a release candidate) if it stays that way
for more than a few days, or drops below 90%.

At the moment, there's no cause for alarm about any of the architectures,
let alone calls for the removal of the guys managing it.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: