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

Re: vancouver revisited



On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:21:00AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:16:47AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 8/23/05, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@lina.inka.de> wrote:
> > > In article <dedhpf$vgs$1@sea.gmane.org> you wrote:
> > > > The number of buildds required to keep up with the
> > > > volume of uploaded packages must not be greater than two.
> > > > There must be that many buildds, in addition there must also be  a redundant
> > > > buildd.

> > > This means 2 or 3?

> > No, it says at most 2 buildds must be able to keep up by themselves.
> > And that at least 1 extra buildd must be available.

> No, it says exactly one extra.

I don't personally have any reason to say a port *can't* have more than one
buildd, though of course there may be reasons (resource issues) why the w-b
maintainers would object to having too many buildds connecting.

> I'd much rather have seen that point go, but that didn't happen.

Meaning you would have preferred that there not be a requirement of buildd
redundancy, or you would have preferred that there not be a limit on the
number of buildds needed to keep up?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: