[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem
> he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected,
> but is the original problem being addressed?

] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The
] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between
] two uploads. [...]
] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build
] packages. [...]

    -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33

I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there
aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present:


The current "out of dates" according to britney are:

      4 i386
     13 amd64
     25 sparc
     32 arm
     38 alpha
     45 powerpc
     47 mipsel
     49 mips
     55 s390
     56 m68k
     82 hppa
     86 ia64

Which likewise seems to indicate arm isn't an issue.

As far as demonstrating the plausibility of setting up emulated buildds is
concerned, I don't think it makes any sense to do that by working on the
live archive for a release architecture. Personally, I've been trying to
promote emulated buildds since at least 2005, but you do that by diving
in yourself and producing a demo, not taking a release architecture with
you and having its users have to tread water with you if you turn out
to be wrong and have to find some way to undo it.

> Frankly I think ftp-master abused his dual roles (ftp-master and arm
> buildd admin) in this incident; any one else's actions would have been
> subject to peer review.

Uh, what's this if not peer review?

In addition, I reviewed both changes, and am not a buildd admin, though
I do share Steve's ability to do give-backs.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: