Hi, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Sven Luther:
>> Well, we just need an arch: all autobuilder and that's it, or one of the
>> autobuilders building the arch: all stuff.
>
> Feel free to set up one.
I have my personal i386 autobuilder running that way for some months now.
It makes sense; I certainly have caught quite a few problems with it --
there's not just the missing-dependency problem that makes packages
non(re)buildable.
Sure, some uploaded packages will be unbuildable, which would generate
more work for the builders, but that problem is solveable. For example, we
could block a package from building when two other autobuilders have
reported a failure on it. That would have the added benefit to place
somewhat less load on already-overworked architectures like m68k.
My vote would be to Just Do It. I can certainly help set up and/or admin a
few autobuilders for i386, if that's what it takes.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
Nasrudin called at a large house to collect for charity. The servant said
"My master is out." Nasrudin replied, "Tell your master that next time he
goes out, he should not leave his face at the window. Someone might steal it."
