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

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

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:53:05PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode 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?

Well, from time to time it is possible that a package slip through the
attention of the buildd admin.
I agree that there should be a way to get aware of those packages and that's
exactly one of the things I want to add to buildd.net in the long run. 

> 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.

This is basically the same as above. In both case there is the need to
measure time of status changes for each package and to determine when a
status change is "overdue". 
> 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.  :-)

*smirk* :)
Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/

Reply to: