Re: buildd administration
Kurt Roeckx <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > Six months is a lot of time; and experimental should provide you with
>> > the space and machine power to handle the rebuilding.
>> I don't know of any autobuilders that build packages from sid against
>> build-dependencies in experimental.
> I thought I did build alot of packages from sid against your
> tetex from experimental, and reported the results to you. I
> guess you found more problems after the ones I got?
Thank you very much, that was indeed a great help. But you didn't build
all, and that was okay at that time, since we detected that some
often used something-to-LaTeX converters had bugs that led to FTBFS, and
it didn't make sense to continue before those would be fixed. I think I
asked you a couple of questions during debugging, and while you were
very responsive at the beginning, you stopped answering at some point,
and I assumed you simply didn't have any time left, when mass building
started to make sense again. Probably I should have asked you
> Anyway, I'm willing to do build tests for such things. Feel free
> to ask me. I'd rather have that those bugs are known before they
> hit unstable.
Is there a list of packages that have not been built by the autobuilders
since a certain date? After subtracting those with known FTBFS bugs, it
would make sense to rebuild them. The same is true for Architecture:
all packages that didn't have an upload since teTeX 3.0 is in unstable.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich