On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:18:04AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes: > > Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2004.bluespice.org> writes: > >> True, there's no formal process for people like me, although I proposed some > >> ideas for something like that some time ago, but that was put down as any > >> other idea, most likely by the same people that are now yelling loudly about > >> trust. It was put down for reasons like "That's nonsense! That can't be > >> done. Shut up, moron! If you want, become a DD!" > > So... I'm a little confused. What do you mean "there's no formal > > process for people like me"? The NM process certainly allows for > > things other than package maintenance. What about you is not covered > > by the existing process? > How about nothing? The NM process realy doesn't apply to someone > willing to contribute resources (like a system so that a DD can run a > buildd): > - He doesn't need to know the Social Contract or DFSG. I think this claim epitomizes the disagreement between those who think buildd admins should be DDs, and those who think it doesn't matter. The Social Contract is the core expression of Debian's value. What message does it send if we don't expect people responsible for core parts of our infrastructure to uphold these values? Or, what message does it send if our ports can't be sustained by people who are committed to these values? > - He doesn't need to know about packagin or about running Debian at > all. The host sytem doesn't even have to be debian. Heh. > All a buildd host admin needs is trust from Debian not to screw Debian. Part of "trusting" people is trusting that they'll act in the interests of the Debian community, which means agreeing to the SC. > > It sounds like you stopped the buildd's because you chose to, not > > because you were told to. You seemed to me to take a few people's > > discussion as determinative. I have no particular opinion about the > > substance of the matter, but your action seemed premature to me. > No, two quite influencial people said to stop it. Read the thread to > find out who. The discussions on irc were even more hostile but from > less important people. I'm afraid I didn't see anyone telling you to stop, even upon rereading the thread; only people expressing concerns. What I did notice was you curiously overstating the impact of these unofficial builds, to wit: - The most recent blocking issue on arm is a Qt FTBFS, which could hardly be addressed by adding buildds, so taking credit for other architectures not being in the same state is inaccurate. - The alpha architecture has a fast new buildd that's been operational for some time now, so while a certain amount of spot-building was helpful in keeping testing moving until goedel was brought on-line, it's disingenuous to suggest this architecture would have trouble keeping up today without extra help. - A number of the "home-built" binaries that have been uploaded recently have not been sanity-checked -- including at least one broken binutils package and one broken gcc-3.3 package. It is questionable whether broken uploads *ever* advance the goals of the release compared with having to wait for the autobuilders to pick them up. This is not to suggest that unofficial binary builds are never helpful, but they are most definitely a *workaround*, not a solution; and there are certainly valid reasons to be concerned about who has root access to machines that are being used for building Debian packages. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature