On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Colin Watson (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Steve Langasek (email@example.com) wrote: <snip> > > Perhaps that issue needs to be brought up more directly with the porters > then, if possible. ie: Put a request out there for porters to check > over what packages havn't been built for their architecture? I'm not > entirely sure if that could really be easily extracted out seperately > from what a buildd admin does (which would imply that we *do* need more > buildd admins if only to help with this not-directly-answering-buildd- > emails issue). > > Also, doesn't 'get required package uploads built everywhere' imply 'ask > the buildd admins what the story wrt a current package is', at least in > some cases? It would seem that if it's possible to decrease the > turn-around time on that it'd be of some benefit... > Hi Stephen etc., IIUC, this is a summary: make source, build package, upload i386 deb to incomming, tell wanna-build, [build on buildd, upload non-i386 deb to incomming] repeat for all archs Is the issue: 1) buildd availability (network or amount) 2) buildd admin responcivness, 3) arch-specific issues that cause build problems for non-i386 not getting fixed? (would that be the 'porters' job?) 4) buildd software issues(pbuild,sbuild,wanna-build,etc) 5) something else? as I've never been a party to this, I'm trying to get more insight into the 'improbability drive' that powers Debian. Do I need a pan-galactic garggle-blaster and a towel first? Cheers, Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $ `Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
Description: Digital signature