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

Re: Explications needed...

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:29:41PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >   Aurelien mailed debian-arm, went to #debian-arm, had no response. He
> > then warn about his intention [1] to run qemu-based autobuilders to fill
> > the gap due to broken arm buildds. He did that on the open, and got ...
> > zero answers.
> He wrote in his blog about setting up an emulated arm buildd, but didn't
> explicitely say he'd upload .debs with it (though one could maybe read
> that between the lines).

  that does still not explains why he has not been contacted, why the
arm buildd admins have been so quick to ban Aureliens uploads and not
fixing the buildds (as Aurélien did that __because__ he got 0 answers),

  I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "If you have 0 answer, then you can't
say that your coordination failed" argument, that's pure (sorry) crap.
That would mean that any delegate that becomes silent can block the
whole release cycle by just becoming /dev/null, which
arm@buildd.debian.org seems near to be. I disagree with you, and can't
accept such an explanation.

  I'd rather say that if buildd admins have so few time that they can't
answer in the week or maybe 10 days to mails to $arch@buildd.debian.org,
then those are outnumbered and need more manpower. Full stop. Any other
explanation is at the least unsatisfactory.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpIVKocBVG_W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: