Re: buildd administration
Ingo Juergensmann <email@example.com> writes:
> Please stop assuming wrong facts.
> As I already stated several times before: Ryan was offered to integrate
> the buildd.net software. He declined with the argument that all
> information is already available on buildd.d.o. That's a clear sign that
> he doesn't want to integrate it. Blame him, not me. And where is the
> source for buildd.debian.org?
If you want to replace an existing infrastructure, you have to clearly
demonstrate that the new stuff is better. Saying that it's okay that the
new stuff isn't publically available because the old stuff isn't either
doesn't help the cause any.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that, in a thread where much has been made of
how overloaded the existing buildd administrators are, the offer of the
buildd software was made privately to one of those overloaded individuals.
(And were they then allowed to make it public?)
C'mon, this is a free software project. The obvious first step for
providing better infrastructure would be to make that infrastructure
publically available for anyone to download, play with, hack on, or
otherwise evaluate, whether the existing infrastructure component is
similarly available or not. I'd think this would just be common sense.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>