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: http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png 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. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature