Re: architecture-specific release criteria - requalification needed
Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 02:15:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:52:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > And sure, other buildd maintainers occasionally set a bogus dep-waits, but
>> > it seems to be m68k where I most frequently have to ask for their removal...
If you look at the number of Dep-Waits and the number of packages in
state Building on other archs you will see that on most the admin
doesn't even set Dep-Wait at all but just reschedules packages manualy
or every now and then just returns all packages for another try.
Obviously if the Dep-Wait feature isn't used you won't get wrong
entries. But check how often people have asked for something to be
rescheduled because now their build-depends are available (or some
other buildd related reason).
If you think that broken Dep-Waits are a big problem you could supply
a patch to sanity check them. Most of the time you can check if the
package exists, that the version will be provided once some missing
source is build (or check against other archs) and so on. In case one
of them can't be verified to be sane w-b could ask for extra
This could also be used in junction with automaticaly adding all
Build-Depends as Dep-Wait for every source upload (all sane ones