On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > > > If I may ask, for what purpose do the buildds have a special list of > > > packages above and beyond those in unstable? > > > > So that in case various packages have to be build in an order, > > where the seconds depends on the first being available and so on, > > that it doesn't take weeks to get them all build. We would have > > to wait at least a dinstall before the next one could be build, > > assuming sometimes has the time to sign the package between > > dinstalls. > > > > It basicly just avoids a whole lot of delays. > > > > Unfortunately, it seems also to add quite some delays in the self-compiling > case. :-/ Each time a buildd finishes, that buildd's Packages file gets > updated due to the completed binary upload and all other buildds go back > into the BD-Uninstallable state. (I assume this also means the package loses > its place in line on the busy buildd queues)
That actually doesn't seem to be that case. I think ftp-master just removed the old binary from unstable, and didn't give the buildd's the chance to actually build against the old version, and we're screwed now. I suggest you ask them to restore the old binaries in unstable, (and remove the arch all) packages for those arches it's not yet build/uploaded for. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110330172213.ga32...@roeckx.be