Re: buildd build order [Was: arm buildd holdup?]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:50:54PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:27:53AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > That's useful to know, but doesn't seem to be correct in the arm case at
> > least.
> >
> > 1. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all out-of-date.
> > 2. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all priority low.
>
> That's urgency low, and as I said, has nothing to do with it.
You're right. I meant to say priority optional.
> The documentation says that section is ordered alphabetically,
> however, this is wrong. There is a list of the section each
> having a value.
OK, that explains the behaviour.
> > What's the purpose of sorting by section in the ordering?
> They are also an ordering of what is most important.
Isn't the priority sufficient to do that? What makes sound more
important than electronics?
It's a bit demotivating to be continually trumped by equally optional
packages, especially as packages are being added to the top of queue
quicker than they're being pulled off. geda-gschem is now #52.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: