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

Re: Are mails sent to xxxx <at> buildd.debian.org sent to /dev/null ?

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:01:58PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:10:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> >> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> >> > I've sent messages to various arch@buildd.debian.org addresses many
> >> > times for various reasons, and they have all always been ignored.

> >> Me too, for values of ignored that include "may have resulted in some
> >> action, but never got a reply email".

> >> I think that we need BTS pseudo-packages for the autobuilders.

> > I'm not sure that would help much; indeed, in the common case (package
> > needs a simple requeue, buildd admin would have taken care of it in due
> > course anyway, sender isn't worried about a lack of reply as long as
> > things are fixed), it would seem to impose a lamentable amount of
> > overhead -- time that could otherwise be spent on the never-ending task
> > of buildd/port maintenance.  The BTS overhead is justified for packages,
> > since any developer can NMU a package; as long as the buildds for most
> > ports are one-maintainer-per-arch, I don't see that having a list in the
> > BTS of packages to be requeued gives us anything over the present
> > situation.

> What would help would be an email address where any DD can send a
> signed mail to request a rebuild or to set a dep-wait or a build
> failure.

> There could be a webpage where one selects the package(s) and
> architecture and it generates a mail template that just needs to be
> signed and send in case you fear the syntax is to complex.

I wouldn't worry nearly so much about syntax as I would about DDs blindly
requeuing packages that are going to fail, and crushing the buildd network.
As it is, I've seen far too many botched attempts at fixing FTBFS bugs, by
maintainers who didn't understand why their packages were failing; I think
giving DDs a button to push any time one of them assumes the buildd is at
fault (which is often assumed) is of dubious benefit.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: