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

Re: microwindows build status

I concur with Dan here - part because it's really his job, part because
I've had it with filing bug reports from m68k buildds myself. But there's
always two sides to that issue, so:

> > 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).
> Right now, there isn't even any link from www.debian.org to
> buildd.debian.org.  If you want maintainers to be responsible for
> checking up on each port to make sure that their packages work on that
> port, then at a minimum, the following things need to happen:
> 1) The developer's reference should say so
> 2) There should be easy and convenient links with that information
>    from (say) packages.debian.org

Agreed on both counts. The developers corner would be a nice spot to add a
link to the package status interface. Having the latest build logs and
status on each packages' page on packages.debian.org is a nice idea, we
just need to make sure packages.debian.org works right in the first place
(i.e. I can look up arcane stuff like pmud there). Once that's done, a log
button with arch selector should be easy enough to have.

What do we have to file a bug against to make that happen?

> 3) Every port should be responsible for making a machine available to
>    developers so that they can fix bugs in their packages.

I can only speak for m68k with any authority - we do offer access for
developers on request, using those machines we have (neither of them
owned by Debian or maintained by DSA, all privately owned and hosted).

We do also work on making one rather high end m68k box available to all
developers without request (still waiting for the barebones box to be
shipped), that machine will be integrated into the standard account
management (if the DSA team agrees). That's all we caan do - if you
suggest having each port set up a mandatory developer machine I'd expect
the project to cover the costs for that in some way.

If you look at http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi most architectures
appear to have one or more machines available.

For powerpc there is voltaire (usually), and in a pinch we can fall back
to giving out accounts on request (see my other mail).

> Note that the problem with microwindows is currently stymied for lack
> of #3.

That's a temporary problem only.


Reply to: