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

Re: buildd administration

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> 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
> explicitly. 

It does help if you ask.  I don't have the time to keep up with
everything that is going on, and forget about such things.

> > 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. 

There are various people who rebuild whole unstable on regular
basis.  Now that it's actually in unstable for a long time,
someone should have picked up those failures already.  I'll
ussually build everything from testing against testing, but I'll
start one for unstable later today.


Reply to: