Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
- To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- Cc: debian-project@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
- From: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:06:01 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070214140601.GI6080@ftbfs.de>
- In-reply-to: <20070214131822.GA26060@azure.humbug.org.au>
- References: <20070212205636.GC27095@cloud.net.au> <20070213041812.GA15952@azure.humbug.org.au> <20070213073507.GA18453@cloud.net.au> <20070213080012.GA16820@azure.humbug.org.au> <20070213121155.GB22663@cloud.net.au> <20070214013319.GA23252@azure.humbug.org.au> <20070214081231.GA13805@cloud.net.au> <20070214111517.GC25183@azure.humbug.org.au> <20070214121656.GA17283@cloud.net.au> <20070214131822.GA26060@azure.humbug.org.au>
Hi,
> Maintaining a buildd isn't trivial, there's:
>
> - making sure they don't get rooted, and their builds compromised
> - keeping the chroot up to date
> - keeping in sync with w-b / sbuild changes
> - keeping in sync with the infrastructure upstream (building from incoming,
> access to the buildd.d.o, etc)
> - keeping the hardware available and running
> - keeping the buildd building packages that will work
>
> It's not /that/ hard either (even if it's not something I could do without
> a chunk of learning), but basically, yeah there are technical constraints.
> The only policy constraint is that we're aiming to keep the number of
> buildds limited to two or three per architecture (where possible); the
> social constraints are mostly about convincingly demonstrating that the
> technical constraints will be met on an ongoing basis.
i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_
years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as
nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned
technical constraints.
Greetings
Martin
--
[root@debian /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-life
Reply to: