Re: buildd administration
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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?)
He is the only contact address mentioned. Who else should get an offer?
> 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.
You can test and play around with buildd.net all you want and easily
see "its superiority". You can also contact Ingo and ask him for the
scripts, as I have done, and you may recieve them. Something that I
found impossible for buildd.d.o.
Ingo is offering a service and paying for it. That he isn't throwing
the source at anyone casualy stumbling accross his site should hinder