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

Re: [debian-devel] Re: Ancient architecture

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 03:38:03AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:44:10PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is the normal explanation, but I don't think that this definition is
> > necessarily useful.  No amount of effort can cause the process to take less
> > time, and in many cases that is the package maintainer's time, not the
> > buildd admin's time.  If he needs to wait several days just to find out
> > that his package didn't build correctly, to upload a new version and wait
> > several days for feedback, this makes his job more difficult.
> So what? 
> If there is no time pressure on release and the package was/is building
> fine, than there is no reason to worry about for the maintainer. 
> Yes, m68k *is* slower than other archs, but that's no reason to complain.
> There are people that care about building the packages and there are people
> that actually use these packages. If the source upload has been done on time
> to get into the release the maintainer has not to be worried if it takes 4
> or 14 days to compile on a specific arch. The RM will do that for him
> instead, right?

Er ... in what universe? (That depends rather on how important the
package is.)


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: