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

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 14:52 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> > better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> > hosted by Debian Developers, rather than random non-developers, for
> > example, could be a better idea than to impose some arbitrary
> > restriction that has no real value; buildd hosts don't necessarily need
> > to be part of the debian.org network to be able to do what they need to
> > do.
> How many *.debian.org machines are actually *owned* by the project or DDs?

All of them. Otherwise they wouldn't be *.debian.org.

> If you're serious, those machines donated by companies should be excluded as
> well.


> Otherwise I could register a small company and donate my machines
> again. Same situation like years ago, just with a small bureaucratic trick. 

I really don't see what your line of thoughts is here.

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Reply to: