On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:35:14PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please?
> >> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just
> >> search for "buildd" on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). One
> >> has to know by some magic who is responsible for which architecture.
> > Well, there are mail aliasses for each arch following the
> > $arch@buildd.debian.org scheme, but don't expect miracles from it (beside
> > that sometimes problems seem to just go away silently ;)).
> http://bugs.debian.org/342548
> Why hasn't that been done before? Where else should this be documented?
Well, Steve wrote lately about the $arch@b.d.o mails:
"AIUI, the <arch>@buildd.debian.org addresses have a ridiculously low S:N
ratio due to spam; moreover, they already receive build logs for each failed
package build, and are generally quite capable of figuring out the source of
a failure on their own, so receiving a second mail about a failure that's
still in their inbox isn't necessarily all that useful."
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/12/msg00021.html)
> > Another possible resource might be http://www.buildd.net/ </adv> ;) - I try
> > to keep the information there as uptodate as possible, but it depends on the
> > will to cowork with the buildd admins/porters, too.
> Ah, that's even better, there's actual names behind the buildd's. I'll
> add that to the patch.
OTOH, some people seem to disagree with you:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=265142
I think that people should choose theirselves what they think is the
best resource for them to find the needed information... ;)
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: 2744150@sipgate.de
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature