[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generally avoiding pushing packages into testing right now because it's not clear that the t-p-u queue is picking up out-of-date packages for building, particularly for archs that are currently hardware strapped; so waiting on the package to build for all archs in unstable may be the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