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

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
>
>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:12:41AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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 
> > > > for weeks?"
> > >
> > > Obviously it was in weak-no-auto-build. That's fairly ok when there is no
> > > huge backlog.
Right -- and this could have been explained in a public reply to the 
port mailing lists back when the questions were asked.  Instead, people 
were left wondering what was going on until some clever person figured 
it out.  That's what I mean by a "quick, public reply".

<snip>
> > > > * I'd like to see 'building' packages which failed to build 
> > > > requeued/dep-waited/failed every two weeks (or more often, of course)
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Doesn't matter. Nathanael, the buildd system is thought out a lot better
> > than you seem to assume. Any state change from "building" to some other
> > state *always* involves a human decision (the others can be automated).
> > See http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states for the full
> > story, or http://people.d.o/~wouter/wanna-build.png for a flowchart of
> > the possible states.
> >
> > The point of the "failed" state is to mark packages that are /buggy/,
> > and of which a rebuild is /pointless/ until "something" (the package
> > itself, usually) is fixed. The point of the "dep-wait" state is exactly
> > to mark a package that cannot be built until some build-dependency is
> > available, as waiting on that build-dependency. While we can build such
> > packages after a given, fixed, period of time, there's no point in
> > trying that until the build-dependency is available, is there?
>
>
> He just ment that the human decision to change state should be made in
> that time. Its unnaceptable to let packages hang as "building" for
> weeks when the build log clearly indicates a trivial Dep-Wait.
That's precisely what I meant.  I'm glad *someone* got it.  :-)  I guess 
I didn't express myself too clearly on that one.

> If there is a bigger reason for it that should be indicated somewhere
> so people don't start to wonder. A red light on www.buildd.net with a
> "hardware breakdown" comment would prevent any informed person from
> screaming about his package not getting build.
Right!

> > [...]
>
>
> MfG
>         Goswin