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