Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org> (26/10/2007): >> Everybody suddenly seems to think that yet another buildd is a great >> idea. Why is it? > > Every once in a while, people post to debian-mentors about their > package failing to build on the buildd for some architecture they > don't have access to. It'd be nice to get automated complaints about > that before buildd time. I had such a problem on a very single architecture (hppa) for openscenegraph. Once that one *knows* that there are some problems on this or that arch, the point is about solving it. Not being told in advance whether this problem is fixed, or isn't. BTW, buildd time is considered cheap these days (discussed some time ago on d-release@ or #d-release) — although I agree that periodically some archs have troubles to keep up. > This does not need to be part of the "core" Debian Mentors > architecture; someone could just automatically grab all the .dsc files > and spend CPU cycles emulating every architecture we have and building > some packages and posting the log. (I'm willing to use my cycles for > that, for example.) I'd better see the possibility of getting an access to the offending archs to try and figure out what the problems are and to fix them. Depending on the archs, it can be easy to get an account (hppa is a very good example, thanks to the available clusters), or it can be very tricky; in that latter case, emulation can help a lot. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature