Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
>> Note that there were one rejected person (me), two non DDs and 5 DDs
>> directly involved in that group of buildds. Also the buildds were setup
>> following the recommendations in the big buildd flameware a while back
>> to setup our own wanna-build to work without of James wanna-build. Noone
>> ever mentioned that buildds must be sanctioned or any other restrictions
>> for them.
>
> Something that I'm a little confused about here.... Did you all turn off
> your extra buildd network because someone in charge (an ftpmaster, the
> DPL, etc.) told you to stop uploading the binaries they built or stopped
> accepting those uploads, or did you turn them off because there was a
> thread about binary NMUs in debian-devel and you felt insulted or attacked
> by the opinions expressed in it? I couldn't tell just from reading the
> thread, and my reaction to these events, and my reaction to all of this is
> likely to be substantially different depending on which it was.
Two RMs and later some DDs expressed their wish that uploading of
packages not build under the DDs direct control should cease imediatly
so I shutdown the wanna-build and thereby all connected buildds.
What bugs me is that last time when we complained that James does not
react to buildd applications we were told to work without him since he
is not neccessary to work a buildd and now some of the same people say
we shouldn't have.
One just can't win.
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: