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

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:01:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The second most significant area of concern, for me, is having people being
> > proactive about dealing with per-architecture build failures.  There's no
> > particular reason that should be the buildd admins' or the release team's
> > area of responsibility, either;

> I agree with you on the "release team" bit; however, I don't think it's
> unfair to request that buildd admins handle build failures. If buildd
> admins of some other architectures can't keep up because they're
> handling all buildd hosts for 3 (or so) architectures, then the problem
> isn't that they're asked to do things that aren't their responsability;
> rather, the problem would be that they're trying to do more than they
> can handle.

I don't see any particular reason that these two areas of responsibility
(chroot maintenance/package signing, and FTBFS reporting/fixing) *shouldn't*
be distinct; looking at the number of unreported FTBFS problems, we could
obviously be doing a much better job of reporting these to maintainers, but
that's a pretty time-consuming task that requires more effort than just
figuring out that the failure wasn't the buildd's fault.  And, anyone
interested in and knowledgeable about the port can step in to help with
processing FTBFS problems.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: