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

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:48:56PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:11:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) 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)

That's not usually an issue.

> 2) buildd admin responcivness,

Not commenting on this one, since I'm a buildd admin myself and one
could ay I'm biased :-)

> 3) arch-specific issues that cause build problems for non-i386 not getting fixed?
> (would that be the 'porters' job?)

It depends. If it fails to build because of an incorrect assumption
(e.g., one regarding char signedness, endianness, whatever), I'd say
it's a bug in the package and thus a job for the package maintainer.

If it fails to build because of a bug in the toolchain, it would
probably be a job for the toolchain maintainers and the porters.

> 4) buildd software issues(pbuild,sbuild,wanna-build,etc)

Not relevant. Whether you have 2 architectures or 25, you'll always need
to maintain sbuild, wanna-build, buildd. TTBOMK, there is no such thing
as 'pbuild'; assuming you mean 'pbuilder', that is not part of the
wanna-build suite and not used in autobuilding.

> 5) something else?

Most likely. The RMs have stated a few times now that maintaining a
distribution with 11 architectures gives them a headache.

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: