On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:10:34PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2005-04-13 18:56]: > > This is precisely the reason why I think it's so completely beside the > > point, from Debian's POV, to worry about whether SPI is capable of > > processing donations when we're organizationally incapable of making sure > > they're put to good use once we have them > That's a little bit unfair to Debian... I authorized the reimbursement > of some hard drives for m68k buildds at the end of 2003 and the person > who bought the disks had to wait 1.5 years to get his money. So there > I was, trying to make good use of Debian's money, but couldn't... > anyway, this has recently been resolved thanks to Branden. Well, the people that have always handled SPIs money have also been involved in SPI as a result of Debian, so I don't think it's unfair to Debian at all... I think this has very much been a Debian problem -- we all bear some responsibility for not making sure Debian was capable of getting its hardware needs taken care of, regardless of the SPI problems that contributed to this. > > Has anyone asked the DPL to authorize purchasing new drives for > > lully? Martin, is this feasible? > Yes, sure. > > What could I expect the turnaround to be for reimbursement? > Should be pretty quick these days. > BTW, Noah Meyerhans at MIT offered two Alphas but so far he hasn't > been taken up on his offer. AIUI, the advantage of trying to fix lully is that lully is already fully configured in w-b and has a full sbuild install, that's merely off-line because it's all on a disk that the system can't boot from -- so getting a new boot drive is all that's needed to get this buildd back up, as opposed to setting up a new one which would require Ryan to create the buildd config from scratch. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature