Re: Update on "upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable" status
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 06:38:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > You're still missing alpha, hppa, sparc, mipsel, s390 and m68k...
> Ok, we can get mipsel and sparc too, is that enough ?
alpha, hppa and s390 should be there too. Skipping out m68k might be
okay, but you should certainly ask and try to get the core libraries
built there too.
> It's not reasonable to ask a full build of gnome2.6 on the 11 archs.
Whatever.
> Having packages ok on i386 is a full time job, there are uploads almost
> every day ... doing the work of autobuilders on 10 archs it's simply too
> much work, and we don't even have enough boxes to do this.
So ask for help.
There are areas where it's reasonable to compromise: you don't need to
rebuild every update on every architecture; or build every miscellaneous
package on every architecture. But you do need to do a _thorough_ job in
prepararing for a major update like this, not whine about how hard it is.
> >> - Upload new atk/pango/glib/gtk/theme-engines in unstable
> >> [1 day]
> > Don't think in terms of just one architecture; your job as maintainer
> > doesn't end when you get the stuff into the autobuilder system, it
> > ends when everything's in unstable and working correctly for all
> architectures.
> Who thinks in terms of one arch ? We have 5 full builds. The 1 day is
> the time to manage the uploads for these packages in unstable, that's
> all.
I can't imagine your five buildds building packages for all eleven
architectures somehow.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Reply to: