Re: Canonical and Debian
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:58:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:12:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek (email@example.com) wrote:
> > > Clone yourself and make yourself a slave to the buildds for 7 or 8
> > > architectures, so that the release team doesn't have to. Neither the
> > Whoah, whoah, whoah, is this actually an option? Last I checked that
> > answer was 'no'. Hell, that's most of the *problem* here. The limited
> > set of people running the buildds don't want to spend more time but
> > being allowed to be a buildd maintainer seems to be limited to a rather
> > small set of folks. There seems to be a few different reasons for this,
> > but one of the big ones is wanna-build access, I believe. This is
> > because of limitations of the current wanna-build framework, which may
> > have now been resolved?
> I don't think Steve was talking about needing more buildd maintainers;
> he was talking about the task of chasing up issues involved in trying to
> get required package uploads built everywhere, which currently ends up
> being a very significant time drain on the release team (since that's
> the set of people who know which uploads have the highest priority).
There could be specific buildd admins in charge of handling packages the
release team need to be built quickly. That could even be partly
automated with the existing framework (packages with freeze exceptions
being built ASAP).
I proposed to have $arch release assistant with some buildd admin power
to help the release team. This is still an option.
I got the possibly wrong impressions that:
1) The release team want some builds to be prioritized.
2) The buildd admins do not want to have to prioritize builds.
and instead of trying to resolve this conflict, the decision was made
to remove 60% of our architecture to work around the problem.
Can't we start to go back and discuss a solution to this conflict ? This
does not seem impossible to tacle.
Imagine a large red swirl here.