Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't beingaccepted.
Mathieu Roy wrote:
>Now, I think the way out of the conflict is from Nathaniel and friends
>to list what they would like to do precisely (the future), by avoiding
>any references to what was not possible because of bla bla (the past).
>For instance, the title of the thread is: Debian needs more
>buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted. There are 3
>questions here, with apparently no clear answer.
Point. Thank you. :-)
In re buildds, and in declining order of importance:
* I'd like a quick, public reply to questions sent to the port mailing lists
like "Why hasn't qt-x11-free built on mipsel despite being first in the queue
* I'd like there to be a second buildd for mipsel. I'd like a public
explanation as to why the offered one isn't being used -- or for it to be
* I'd like public statement(s) as to why akire, mrvn, and tanda aren't
acceptable buildds and/or why their administrators are untrustworthy -- or
for them to be accepted.
* I would like each buildd to be properly reported on the pages at
www.buildd.net, with no "not participating" entries -- or the equivalent
information provided in some other way.
* I'd like to see built packages uploaded weekly (or more often, of course)
* I'd like to see 'building' packages which failed to build
requeued/dep-waited/failed every two weeks (or more often, of course)
* When the above schedules can't be met, I'd like to see an appropriate
mention on the www.buildd.net webpage -- or other appropriate location.
Now to forestall the expected complaints.
*If* the reason certain things can't be done is that certain people are "too
* I'd like there to be more people given the authority/ability to do those
If the complaint is that nobody else can do these things, then:
* I'd like a request to be issued asking for volunteers to help do these
things, with required skills listed
* or, I'd like the "busy" people to drop or share one or more of their other
jobs so as to have more time for this one!