On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 18:36 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > So the release criteria require buildd redundancy. And yet, half the > > release candidate archs still don't have it. It gets marked in yellow > > on http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html. > > > > Well, the one-and-only alpha buildd has been down for apparently ten > > days and does not respond to ping, and I don't recall seeing anything > > from the alpha team on debian-release or debian-devel. Please correct > > me if this is inaccurate. > > The machine is currently being moved to a new location, fwiw. That's fascinating. It was not mentioned on either mailing list I described, and it still doesn't affect the point. It's not reasonable for the release to be inconvenienced because the machine is being moved; that kind of thing is *exactly why* we have the requirement to have more than one buildd. If the requirement is going to be ignored, even in the case where it is in the middle of things, then let's not have the requirement at all. Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part