On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:35:14PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > >> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please? > >> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just > >> search for "buildd" on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). One > >> has to know by some magic who is responsible for which architecture. > > Well, there are mail aliasses for each arch following the > > $arch@buildd.debian.org scheme, but don't expect miracles from it (beside > > that sometimes problems seem to just go away silently ;)). > http://bugs.debian.org/342548 > Why hasn't that been done before? Where else should this be documented? Well, Steve wrote lately about the $arch@b.d.o mails: "AIUI, the <arch>@buildd.debian.org addresses have a ridiculously low S:N ratio due to spam; moreover, they already receive build logs for each failed package build, and are generally quite capable of figuring out the source of a failure on their own, so receiving a second mail about a failure that's still in their inbox isn't necessarily all that useful." (http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/12/msg00021.html) > > Another possible resource might be http://www.buildd.net/ </adv> ;) - I try > > to keep the information there as uptodate as possible, but it depends on the > > will to cowork with the buildd admins/porters, too. > Ah, that's even better, there's actual names behind the buildd's. I'll > add that to the patch. OTOH, some people seem to disagree with you: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265142 I think that people should choose theirselves what they think is the best resource for them to find the needed information... ;) -- Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150 Ingo \X/ SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature