Re: StrongARM tactics
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > So those should get added to P-a-s instead.
> > Well, but that'd be something for the buildd-admin to collect.
> > (Or maintainers of the packages, but that doesn't seem to fashionable
> > nowadays...)
> Um... no. This is *porter* work; one does not have to be a buildd admin to
> analyze a build failure to see whether the package belongs in P-a-s, and
> there's no reason that the buildd admins alone should bear the
> responsibility for figuring out whether a permanent build failure should be
> fixed or ignored. (Maintainers probably need to be involved in this
> process, but usually maintainers don't have the requisite knowledge about
> all our ports to make informed decisions on their own.)
FWIW, I started to send mips patches for P-a-s, following the procedure
outlined at the top of this file. There was neither a response nor any
other discernable action.
> Saying "that's the buildd admin's job" about tasks that don't *need* to be
> done by the buildd admin is a pretty effective way of encouraging the
> problems that the Vancouver proposal sought to address, where two or three
> people end up carrying all the ports, and all their time is eaten up by
> maintaining the buildds and giving back failed packages with no time for
> following through on the permanent failures (which, even though they
> sometimes represent a minority of Maybe-Failed packages usually account for
> a majority of the actual work needing done).
A while later, and rather by accident, Ryan Murray told me on IRC
(paraphrased) "Of course they were ignored, you aren't a buildd admin.
Send them to me." So I did. Ryan acknowledged to have received them with
(again paraphrased) "Well, it's not so urgent." This was about 6 weeks ago.
> > >>weechat: don't know, error on dh-strip on 5 archs, no bug filed
> > >>That's 2 out of 7 which need actual debugging, both not arm-specific.
> > > And only 1/7 where some action of the buildd maintainer is needed
> > > at this time to get something build.
> > The dep-wait is well inside the "some action of the buildd maintainer is
> > needed". The needed P-a-s entries could be handeled centrally if the
> > problem description is "pile of maybe-failed packages".
> Wonderful. Nice to see that you think P-a-s entries are somebody else's
> problem that should be "handled centrally".
It appears to be the idea of the people with write access to P-a-s.