Re: buildd maintainers stuck?
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 07:46:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> The initial upload of libcapplet 1:1.5.11-12 failed to build on alpha,
>> arm, i386, and mipsel because of a temporarily absent build
>> dependency. This upload occurred over three weeks ago.
>
>> On November 17 I requested that the buildds requeue this build, but
>> nothing has happened. Can the release team please schedule a binNMU
>> or do whatever is supposed to happen?
...
> My preference would be that such requests be sent first to the porters
> (either the mailing lists specified on http://www.debian.org/ports/, or the
> individual porters mentioned on the wiki pages linked from
> http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html). While most of these
> porters are not themselves buildd admins, they *are* the people responsible
> for the overall health of a given port, and they should definitely be taking
> an active role in sorting out build failures for their architecture; so if
> they aren't already in a position to batch-proxy such requests to the buildd
> maintainers, they darn well ought to get there.
Please don't. That is just wrong.
All packages should be buildd build and the porters can do nothing if
the buildd (admin) screws up. It realy is the admins job to fix the
buildd and handle missing Build-Depends.
If the port is suddenly responcible for fixing buildd problems then
more people need access to wanna-build and buildds so they can actualy
do something about it. Or binary NMUs must be un-deprecated again.
MfG
Goswin
PS: One thing $random volunteer could do would be patching wanna-build
to Dep-Wait automatically for the obvious cases.
Reply to: