On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:31:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be > > > spending its limited resources keeping hardware running for dead > > > architectures? > > > No. They never did, and they never should. The fact that some people are > > involved with both DSA and buildd maintenance doesn't mean DSA, as a > > group, has anything to do with buildd maintenance. > > - the Debian System Administrators (DSA) must be willing to support > debian.org machine(s) of that architecture > > - there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the > architecture. > > Who maintains crest.debian.org?
Uh, sorry, I was confused there; I thought you were only talking about maintaining buildd machines for architectures. In any case, the burden to maintain one (or two) hosts as general developer-accessible machines is far lighter than to impede DSA with having to maintain all buildd hosts... -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]