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

Re: pre-building NEW packages, when they only introduce new binary packages


On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 18:02 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:06:38PM +0100, Evgeni Golov a écrit :
> > On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:10:20 -0500 Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> > 
> > > > That probably won't make much time difference on "fast" archs (i386,
> > > > amd64 etc), but on slower ones like mips, mipsel etc (those sometimes
> > > > hold up testing transition :().
> > > A missing build will only slow testing migration if the package wasn't 
> > > built when the unstable testing delay is over. Since almost all uploads 
> > > to NEW are low urgency, the build would need to take over 10 days to 
> > > affect the time to testing migration.
> > 
> > pokerth 0.6-1-2 needed 13 days (uploaded on 28.01, built [but not yet
> > uploaded] today), so it *can* make a difference (not a really big one
> > though in this case)
> Indeed, especially that it has been said that having the buildds not
> keeping up is not uncommon during a release cycle, implementing a
> mechanism to reduce the impact of this problem would be a good thing.
> We are ending up in a similar stress situation as for last release, when
> uploading to NEW many weeks before the freeze we were wondering if the
> package would be part of the release or not. People with
> responsibilities in Debian's core infrastructures should consider that
> it is demotivating for many.

The main problem is that mipsel is behind at the moment. _THAT_ is
demotivating, as it is blocking packages from entering testing which
_NEED_ to.

Sadly, a port which is probably used by less than 1000 people is
blocking needed migrations and even the XMMS removal (!).

It'd be nice if mipsel was either given additional resources to stay
kept up, or the architecture was disqualfied for Lenny. I'm personally
not fussed about which option is chosen.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: