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

Re: s390 not currently projected releasable (was: Re: Dropping from mirror network vs dropping from tier-1)

* Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) wrote:
> Blars Blarson <blarson@blars.org> writes:
> > Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
> > mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
> > and upload packages to help the build with its backlog and lack of
> > requeueing.
> So?  A buildd maintainer doesn't have a veto over other people
> uploading binary builds of packages.  W-b and buildd's do not have a

Well, that's not *necessairly* true.  If the buildd maintainer is also
part of DSA/ftpmasters (as seems to often be the case, and might even be
required by some unwritten law) then it'd be possible for them to
disable the account doing the uploading.  I don't know if that's what
the threat was and I've never heard of this being done to a DD but it's
certainly in the realm of possibility.

> monopoly over binary NMUs; the procedures are well documented in the
> Developer's Reference.  Seems to me that either the package maintainer
> or the porting team should be consulted, but given that, the buildd
> has no special status or authority.  It's a nice thing, but it's not
> the only way to upload binary NMUs.

It's not quite that simple, buildds have to coordinate to avoid
duplicating work or attempting to build things that can't be built, etc.
Starting up a buildd that doesn't coordinate with the others could
disrupt things and cause alot of duplicated work and possibly other
problems, as I understand it.  Apparently this coordination is less than
stellar at scaling which may have been the reason for denying buildd
addition in the past.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: