[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:37:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > Easy: the best tools we've got to judge whether buildds are keeping up
> > are the buildd graphs which indicate that with the exception of m68k
> > and arm (hrm, and possibly hppa), all our ports are doing extremely well.
> This is the only metric?  How about long delays on particular
> packages?  The average amount built is not the only consideration.

No, not the only, the best. It is mostly the responsibility of the
maintainer to resolve package specific issues though; which usually amount
to three things: FTBFS bugs, problems with toolchains and build-depends
that only affect one package or a few, and problems with P-a-s not
being accurate.

Toolchain issues usually, which seem to be your concern, take some time
to resolve, and are often fixed by "mass give-backs" once related issues
have worked their way through the build system. Sometimes the related
problems take a while to resolve, of course.

FTBFS issues are the most common though, as well as the easiest to
resolve; your point would carry more weight if you took the time to fix
yours first. (Looking through -private, I saw someone remark that 1000
bugs was too many -- we have got 1400 _RC_ bugs at the moment...)

(Also, those graphs do not indicate the "average" amount by any measure,
so your characterisation is again completely wrong. Please take more


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: