Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not > doing his job as buildd maintainer.
Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is given as a requirement for buildd maintainership. > You can't pretend to be the one > handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions > around problems specific to this architecture. Similarly, people can't pretend that mailing debian-$arch is a substitute for emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which is in the buildd section of the devel-ref). In message http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00161.html and the parent of http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/12/msg00155.html Aurelien Jarno comments about emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED], so what has this [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs [EMAIL PROTECTED] to do with anything? > Would you trust a release > manager who wouldn't be reading debian-release? I'd trust one who didn't read eveything on debian-release. I'm uncertain about who did what on the whole RogueOrNot buildd, but much of that email seems to be unhelpful. This looks like an old problem: the project doesn't recover gracefully if people in its organizational structure become unresponsive. Any bright ideas on how to fix that? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
