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

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

[please don't cc: me on this thread, one copy is plenty, thanks; and
please don't cc: debian-release unless there's a specific reason it's
on-topic there, which explaining wanna-build is not. ;)]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:30:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 17:03 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:

> [...]
> > If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> > policy, then it could be properly used.  Until then, I go on the basis
> > of guesswork.  

> That indication is there, and it mainly boils down to 'buildd builds
> packages in a more or less predefined order which a maintainer has no
> direct influence on'. Of course, we can massage the ordering if
> required, but that is only done in exceptional cases.

> If your problem is 'my package will not migrate to testing!', then you
> are wrong, too. There are precedents for release managers forcibly
> moving packages to testing, even if the architectures are not in sync;
> there are precedents for an architecture with a huge backlog being
> temporarily ignored for the testing migration.

Yes, though we're generally avoiding pushing packages into testing right
now because it's not clear that the t-p-u queue is picking up
out-of-date packages for building, particularly for archs that are
currently hardware strapped; so waiting on the package to build for all
archs in unstable may be the *quickest* way to get the package in sync
in testing.  It's an ugly trade-off, but I think we've erred on the side
of caution for long enough and will probably be more aggressive with
buildd-stalled RC fixes going forward.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: