[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 02:57:01PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> For example with the arm/mipsel problems I
> would have known why the buildds weren't building KDE packages for a
> month, and could have probably already uploaded KDE 3.2.0 by now.

] --- Day changed Fri Jan 30 2004
] [...]
] 15:33 <aj> calc: upload it to experimental now instead; that way you get the 
]            NEW processing out of the way now
] 15:33 <calc> aj: i will as soon as i have some reasonably ready ones, 
]              probably tomorrow
] 15:34 <calc> well ~ 12hrs from now anyway
] 15:34 <aj> calc: (err, "you can ..", not "please do .." necessarily)

Uploading KDE 3.2.0 to unstable isn't the right thing to do when it's
likely to have RC bugs and cause us lots of problems trying to release;
uploading it to experimental doesn't affect the autobuilders in any
way. I don't see why you think blaming the buildds makes any sense.

Even ignoring that, given the s390 build of KDE 3.1.5-2 is failing due to 

] /usr/include/asm/ptrace.h:448: error: syntax error before "s390_fp_regs"
] /usr/include/asm/ptrace.h:457: error: syntax error before '}' token
] In file included from /usr/include/sys/user.h:22,
]                from ../../../../ksysguard/ksysguardd/Linux/ProcessList.c:29: 
] /usr/include/asm/user.h:55: error: field `regs' has incomplete type

things don't seem like they'd be any better with more buildds anyway. And
given that you're presumably waiting on KDE 3.1.5 to go into testing
before uploading KDE 3.2, complaining when it's currently at 13 days
out of 10 required seems a bit premature.


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: