Re: Explications needed...
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:24:27PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect
> Maybe that's because the buildd admins used to be the porters, and then,
> for some reason I do not understand, this mysteriously stopped being
Usually, the porters who initially set up the port did buildd admin
stuff too, but then got tired of it and gave it up to the "central"
buildd admin team. Since maintaining a buildd host is pretty boring and
numb work, I can see why that is; but when this happens, the people
actually doing the most work for the port are no longer porters.
The only exception to this rule is m68k, where porters are buildd admins
and buildd admins are porters. This has its upsides (when there's an
issue with the port, people who actually care about the port are told
immediately, and are in the ability to do something about it; having a
team to maintain a buildd host instead of just one person increases
response time to package maintainers), but also its downsides (having a
single buildd admin for more than one port will help him to more easily
distinguish between an obscure package bug that occurs on more than one
architecture and an obscure compiler bug that is architecture-specific
and will need fixing; having one buildd maintainer per arch as opposed
to a team will allow one to faster see recurring obscure problems that
need fixing). Which of the two approaches is best is not an easy
question to answer; all I can say is that both approaches seem to work
in different situations.
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22