Re: Explications needed...
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Yes, let's be clear here: ARM was in danger because of a large number of
> > packages that were *not buildable*, not just because they weren't built.
> > The call for help was in identifying the reasons for the build failures so
> > that the underlying problems could be fixed, *not* for hand-building
> > packages and ignoring the implications for security support.
> I feel it's deeper than that:
> now that aurélien completely stopped to upload non built packages at
> all (a thing he did on a regular basis before, and just automated with
> his "rogue" autobuilder) just look at , whereas every single arch is
> keeping up quietly, arm and sparc seem to go to the deepness of hell. I
> don't know who are the sparc buildd admins, but for sure, the arm port
> do not seem to be that well.
>  http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png
Er, a 5-day slump during the holidays is not "the deepness of hell" --
especially when at the low point of this slump, arm was only just below the
originally proposed (and ultimately unenforced) cutoff for up-to-dateness.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.