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

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

I wrote:
>> * I'd like to see built packages uploaded weekly (or more often, of course)
To clarify: what I mean by this, is packages which have been autobuilt but not 
"Installed".  There have been recurring on-and-off problems where packages 
had built successfully but had mysteriously not been uploaded to the pool.  
That shouldn't even be an issue, should it?

I wrote:
>> * I'd like to see 'building' packages which failed to build 
>> requeued/dep-waited/failed every two weeks (or more often, of course)

Ingo wrote:
>Uh? You mean a list of now-building packages that were broken two weeks ago?
>Something like a diff for failed/dep-wait list with building/needs-build?
No, I mean that packages which were "building" but failed should be moved from 
the "Building" list to one of the other lists at least every two weeks.  Some 
of them have been known to sit in the "Building" state after they failed for 
loooong periods.

Ingo wrote:
>Well, buildd.net is of course no official part of Debian. 
>The reason is simple: Ryan refused to cooperate on that. I offered/asked him
>the scripts to get hosted on buildd.debian.org, but he said that all
>information one needs is already on buildd.d.o.
Except not organized nearly as well as on buildd.net.  :-)

> Which of course is correct
>mostly (apart from the buildd status update thingie, the contact addresses,
>the additional buildd docs and such).
And then there's that.

> But the basic information is indeed
>obtained from the $arch-all.txt from buildd.d.o. 

Sounds rather like a Not-Invented-Here reply.  *sigh*  Oh well, thanks for 
pointing out problems yet again.

Reply to: