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

Re: microwindows build status

On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:33:25PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 03:47:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> writes:
> > 
> > > (I rarely do these
> > > days, rather rely on the maintainer to check build status and
> > > logs). 
> > 
> > This is not such a good idea.  Maintainers are generally not
> > responsible for checking build status and logs; the port maintainer
> > (whoever is responsible for making the binary NMU) should do that andn
> > file an RC bug.
> > 
> > Indeed, there are many packages that miss getting into testing because
> > of some problem uploading or building one port or another, and
> > maintainers in general seem to be totally unaware of these.  I think
> > the people who take responsibility for uploading the binary NMUs for
> > various ports need to also take the responsibility for filing bugs
> > when things are failing.
> I think that's a drastically unfair judgement.  I would rather ask
> every maintainer to do a few extra steps for the quality of their
> packages (or better yet, to improve automated systems to notify
> (opt-in) maintainers about such problems).  The port maintainers

Such as the package subscription stuff just mentioned on debian-qa?  I
don't think having a brief email sent each time a package is autobuilt
would be too much.  (I'd prefer a single email sent when a new version
is uploaded, build reports for all architectures, but I don't thik the
buildd's are syncronized that well.)

> already have a significant amount of work to do on this front, and are
> generally package maintainers themselves also.
> Of course, I expect James to insert a comment here about how it isn't
> really that much work... but we all accept that James is superhuman.

Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus

Reply to: