On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:42:01PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > 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), > etc... > > 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,... Hi, if there is a blockage of an arch because of buildd failures and the buildd maintainer, etc. are non-responsive, what is the hierarchy of who to contact? buildd admin, then tech commtte, then ftpmaster, then RM, then DPL? cheers, Kev ps. it seems Aurelien was 'routing around a problem' with no malicious intension which runs contrary to the word 'rogue' which was used to describe his actions. -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature