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

Re: Explications needed...

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> An arm buildd maintainer not reading debian-arm@l.d.o is simply not
> doing his job as buildd maintainer.

Please show where reading everything on debian-$arch@lists.d.o is
given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.

> You can't pretend to be the one
> handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions
> around problems specific to this architecture.

Similarly, people can't pretend that mailing debian-$arch is a
substitute for emailing $arch@buildd.debian.org (which is in the
buildd section of the devel-ref).

In message http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00161.html
and the parent of
Aurelien Jarno comments about emailing arm@buildd.debian.org, so what
has this debian-arm@lists vs arm@buildd to do with anything?

> Would you trust a release
> manager who wouldn't be reading debian-release?

I'd trust one who didn't read eveything on debian-release.

I'm uncertain about who did what on the whole RogueOrNot buildd, but
much of that email seems to be unhelpful.  This looks like an old
problem: the project doesn't recover gracefully if people in its
organizational structure become unresponsive.  Any bright ideas on how
to fix that?

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: