On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:54:02PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:38AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > I think that's about it, really. The buildds are operated by humans, and
> > > all the signatures are manual although the builds themselves aren't.
> >
> > More specifically, buildd will start compiling a package fully
> > automatically; but it does not handle whatever happened to the build,
> > successful or otherwise, by itself -- except in a few corner-cases (when
> > the state on buildd.d.o is "maybe-given-back"). Both successful builds
> > (have to be signed) and unsuccessful builds (logs have to be interpreted,
> > appropriate action has to be taken based on the type of failure) need
> > manual intervention when they're finished.
> >
> it looks like a lot of work to be done manually...
Scripts are nice :-)
(handling a "successful" log takes less than a second here. A failed one
may be a bit longer, depending on the type of failure)
> i suppose it is nearly impossible for a mortal developer to try
> contributing with this kind of work, isn't it?
We're all mortal :-)
But yeah, if you're not involved with buildd, it's kinda hard to get
involved. In my case, I just happened to be on m68k-build when Michael
Schmitz considered giving away maintenance of arrakis... Luck perhaps,
I don't know...?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature