Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:10:25PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > AJ Towns wrote:
> > > The problem that does exist is that people feel it's appropriate to make
> > > attacks like Nathanael did through this mailing list.
> > And why, precisely, is this a problem? If I'd been wrong about the existence
> > of the problem, there would not be a dozen people popping up to corroborate
> > my complaint.
> Uh, no, that's not the case. On any issue people can reasonably disagree,
> you'll usually be able to find some support for whichever side you
> take. That's what happens when you have a large project.
> And in this particular case, there simply isn't a problem: the buildds
> are working fine.
And on that we strongly disagree. No point going over it again.
> > In actual fact, I was right.
> But, of course, you're not going to listen to anyone else, so there's not
> much point communicating with you anyway. So whatever.
> > I have been voicing the complaints of others -- in some cases others who
> > don't want to be "blacklisted" for complaining.
> Again, the problem isn't that you're "complaining". There are plenty of
> ways to complain other than how you've chosen to do so, some of which are
> actually admirable and productive.
> > > The only response I can think of that has any hope
> > > of a good outcome is strongly opposing the existance of such threads,
> > Which you've done, but it's (a) hopeless, (b) creates more flames, (c)
> > probably doesn't help any outcome, and (d) you're not doing it very
> > convincingly.
> Well, I guess the other option is to start closing the project to people
> who aren't willing to take up issues in a friendly and cooperative manner.
> > > and recommending alternatives,
> > Yeah, but the only alternatives you've recommended are:
> > * shut up and do nothing (which of course has no effect)
> > * politely make polite requests (and the whole line of complaint is related to
> > the fact that this often results in nothing being done)
> Well, no. I've suggested that people who think this is a problem and are
> developers setup their own buildds without Ryan's assistance. Personally,
> I think that'll be a waste of their time, and I'm mildly concerned that
> it might cause more breakage than what we currently have, but that's
> the outlet we have for all cases of disagreement: do the work yourself
> and stop complaining.
It becomes a huge problem when the two buildds can't cooperate. That
cooperation is normaly achived by the central wanna-build. But hey,
getting access to that is the problem.
Why do you think the already setup and fully functional mips buildd is
nor running? Nobody wants to start a war and add more problems.
I've been running two m68k buildds without wanna-build access and its
a lot of work keeping them from clashing with the other ones. My time
_and_ the time of someone with access to the central wanna-build for
that arch, which would be Ryan for mips/mispel.
> > Someone *else* suggested contacting the DPL directly, which is at least a
> > reasonable alternative.
> The DPL's already given you an answer on this issue. Oddly enough you
> don't seem particularly satisfied. But given it didn't follow the policy
> of "Do whatever Nathanael wants", I guess that's not surprising.
He has solved some issues (some information whats going on and
improving arm) and suggested a solution for the larger problem.
He suggested a mediator to facilitate better communications with James
but hasn't designated one yet. I'm sure volunteers are welcome and
should contact the DPL.
> > > which is what I've done.
> > Suggest a real alternative, and perhaps you'll get further.
> Considering I've already done so, that doesn't seem likely.