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

Re: the ongoing xfree86 buildd saga

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 05:10:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:

> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:41:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> > > > That won't help, especially not in this case. Those who manage the
> > > > autobuilder are best suited to know when the autobuilder will be fixed,
> > > > since they are the ones who have to clean up...
> > > 
> > > What I'm saying is that once it's cleaned up, I have two options:
> > > 
> > > * ask for my package to be requeued;
> > > * do another upload.
> > > 
> > > And I'm almost certain that the latter option is faster, and that the
> > > former option will have an unpredictable delay of up to a week.
> > 
> > What I'm saying is that the delay is likely in cleaning up, not
> > necessarily in requeueing. Hence, your upload will likely break again,
> > in exactly the same way it did before.

> Once it's cleaned up.  Let me repeat.  ONCE IT'S CLEANED UP.

> There are two delays.  One is the delay waiting for it to be cleaned
> up.  The other is the delay waiting for the package to be rebuilt.

> I'm talking about the *second* delay.

> ONCE IT'S CLEANED UP, what should I do to get the package rebuilt?
> Seems to me, I should requeue it.  Nothing else is an advertised or
> reliable way.  Even the <arch>@buildd.debian.org I'm now told is not
> reliable.

I don't think it would hurt if maintainers whose packages are in this state
would email the relevant <arch>@buildd.debian.org addresses and cc:
debian-release on the message -- now, rather than waiting for the buildds to
be fixed.  Hopefully, this would save the buildd maintainers the trouble of
having to look through all the build logs to find the ones related to this
breakage, and they can requeue them as a batch.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: