Re: Buildds slow/unuseable -> drop that arch
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 10:17:17AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > It saddens me to see that donations of accounts and free cpu cycles to
> > DDs are no longer appreciated by Debian. Any request to (re)build
> > package must now again go solely to <arch>@buildd.debian.org.
> Please don't take it personally, but IMO that also shows that the
> architectures in question are not important enough to be part of a major
> Debian release. Take it as is - if they were popular enough, there would
> be enough DDs willing to offer their own boxes as buildds. But since
There have been offers for more machines, f.e. for mips, but those have been
rejected or ignored.
> nobody does, and they need to be helped by external volunteers, maybe
> there really only few people using them?
You can't blame the arrogance and ignorance of some DDs on the arch or its
userbase in general. The same goes for an inactive or overloaded buildd
admin.
> Why should they hold up a whole
> release - something that really bothers 99% of other users? Debian is
> not only about ideology, we also have practical reasons. Efforts to keep
> dead architecturs alive are noble, but not very rational from the
> practical point of view.
As already stated several times it's not only the fault of slow archs. Some
DDs tend to ignore FTBFS errors on other archs for a long time until they
realize, that a certain arch is holding their package out of the
release/sarge/testing/whatever.
Just because *you* don't use a certain arch, doesn't mean that it's not
being used or unimportant at all.
I don't think that m68k is holding back the release, but the transition of
libtiff and such has done. Without those transitions (and the upload of kde
3.3 and new qt libs) there wouldn't have been such a backlog.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: