Re: buildd administration [was Re: StrongARM tactics]
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Er, did you even *read* this thread? We got on the topic of buildds because
> *someone refused to help diagnose build failures because they consider it the
> buildd admin's job*.
Maybe it's not entirely impossible that the other subthread starting at
| Wonderful. Nice to see that you think P-a-s entries are somebody
| else's problem that should be "handled centrally".
and containing a few reports similar to Thiemo's
| 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.
could have contributed to the "buildd administration" complaints?
The reaction to my (admittedly less than optimal) attempt at an analysis
that followed was not "oh, do check these with porters and maintainers
and then get back to me" from someone who could then change the file,
but half dozen people saying something to the effect "I'm a
porter/maintainer and were utterly unsucessful at my attempts to get
I do appreciate your comments of proposed P-a-s additions that you think
problematic but the rest of the thread rather spells "don't bother".
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/