Re: unreliable buildds for non-free
On 2010-03-03, Joachim Reichel <email@example.com> wrote:
> What is the recommended procedure to deal with this? Last time I asked
> the release team to remove the offending architecture from testing.
> Should I simply do that for (almost) every upload?
>From now you should only get buildd uploads for builders that still work,
it should not get less anymore. I.e. if there's something missing now,
remove it and it will get back when we're back in business.
> Is it acceptable to add such non-free packages to Packages-arch-specific
> (in general, and in this particular case)?
In general: no. If it gets too much of a pain we can do it temporarily.
I guess we'll get there wrt support of non-free at the end of this month,
at least I hope so.