Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Ingo,
so I've read the darned -devel archives and even logged into master to
bounce these mails to not mess up the headers.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 05:08:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:36:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to make their case on
> > > debian-devel. What is it about setting out the complaint here that
> > > offends you so much?
> > The charter for debian-devel is technical discussion about Debian
> > development. This isn't technical discussion, it's a demand that either
> > a delegate reverse a decision, or the DPL remove them. That's off-topic,
> > and utterly inappropriate from a non-developer; it would be on-topic for
> > the technical ctte if it was brought up by a developer (which Nathanael,
> > Ingo and Goswin aren't), and that developer was actually significantly
> > affected by the lack of buildds (which ttbomk, no one actually is --
> > were this a bug, it'd be "wishlist", for it to be appropriate to involve
> > the tech ctte it should be at least "important").
>
> Oh, that's sound like fun...
> You say that this issue should be brought up to the ctte, but that we (the
> three persons you're mentioning) basically can't do that because we're not a
> developer and therefore that would be inappropriate.
Look. I really think your kind-of-renegade attitude towards becoming a
DD ("They can't communicate! I don't want to be part of a project where
they can't communicate! But nevertheless I donate my time to the
project") is kind of cool (not as cool as Overfiend used to before he
became a politician, but still), but you're wasting everybody's time
here.
If Nathanael and you don't want to become DDs, that's fine, but both
sides have to live with the consequences. One of the consequences is
that you don't get to demand stuff from respected DDs, just because you
happen to think otherwise.
> > For buildds that's James and Ryan; and they've been doing that
> > very well for years now.
>
> Apparently that isn't anymore the case.
Apparently *you believe* this is not anymore the case. Apart from calc,
I don't see a lot of DDs argue about this. And aj, elmo and neuro seem
to be either not much concerned or working on it, so this is perfectly
alright with me. And for the record, I'm working on the Hurd port, and
we did not have an autobuilder *for over half a year*.
IMHO, buildds are important, but keeping them current is not nearly as
important as you want to believe. It's not like "OMG, a buildd went
down, stop the presses!!!1!". And it's not a sport either ("If we've had
three more buildd for arch foo, we'd be up from 97.3% to at least 98.5%,
but *you* block the future of mankind")
> > But what's particularly offensive about it, is that there have been
> > idiotic flamewars like this against James approximately every couple
> > of weeks for the past few years.
>
> It should make you think about it, when this happens regularly.
> Do you ever thought of the fact, that there might be a reason for all those
> "idiotic flamewars". Why do you use these word anyway? When other people use
> the word "idiot(ic)" you judge the whole thread as offensive and
> unnecessary, but use those kinds of words by yourself to get rude and
> offensive.
For me, you have lost the right to not join Debian because "They cannot
communicate" with all the communication fumbles you produced in this
thread.
To clarify, I don't think that you have lost the right to become a DD (I
would applaud that and perhaps even advocate you), but rather the right
to cite 'DDs cannot communicate' as a reason for not doing so, after
having read this thread.
> > *None* of them have been necessary or productive, and if that's the
> > reward for the level of contributions James has offered the project,
> > then it's clear that the project doesn't want responsible committed
> > people to be a part of it.
>
> Maybe they're just not productive because some[TM] people block the whole
> process from being productive? Would be worth a though, eh? ;)
I don't see how the whole process is being blocked. Why don't you let
elmo and neuro do their work in the way they think is best, while *you*
do *your* work (as in the m68k team does the m68k porting) in the way
you think is best. If this includes running a seperate wanna-build
database, I think this would be an acceptable compromise for the time
being, and I don't get why you guys rather like running against the
'James Troup Wall[TM]' then getting the work done.
> > > Let's get the problems out in the open so they can be identified and
> > > fixed.
> > Flamewars on this list correlate very poorly with actual problems
> > facing Debian.
>
> Can you please enlighten me *who* is in the ctte?
Read www.debian.org yourself. And no, neither elmo nor neuro are on it,
so there must be a hidden *real* ctte somewhere ;)
Michael
Reply to: