Re: Explications needed...
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:24:27PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect Maybe that's because the buildd admins used to be the porters, and then, for some reason I do not understand, this mysteriously stopped being true. Usually, the porters who initially set up the port did buildd admin stuff too, but then got tired of it and gave it up to the central buildd admin team. Since maintaining a buildd host is pretty boring and numb work, I can see why that is; but when this happens, the people actually doing the most work for the port are no longer porters. The only exception to this rule is m68k, where porters are buildd admins and buildd admins are porters. This has its upsides (when there's an issue with the port, people who actually care about the port are told immediately, and are in the ability to do something about it; having a team to maintain a buildd host instead of just one person increases response time to package maintainers), but also its downsides (having a single buildd admin for more than one port will help him to more easily distinguish between an obscure package bug that occurs on more than one architecture and an obscure compiler bug that is architecture-specific and will need fixing; having one buildd maintainer per arch as opposed to a team will allow one to faster see recurring obscure problems that need fixing). Which of the two approaches is best is not an easy question to answer; all I can say is that both approaches seem to work in different situations. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Explications needed...
Wouter Verhelst a écrit : having one buildd maintainer per arch as opposed to a team will allow one to faster see recurring obscure problems that need fixing). That's the theory. The reality shows the exact contrary, at least for arm: - The chroot of netwinder is broken for weeks. - tofee is loosing packages for weeks. - Some build daemons do not have enough resources to build big packages. Nobody adds those packages to weak_no_auto_build or weak_no_auto_build on those build daemons. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: db.debian.org (and related infrastructure) updates
On Saturday 30 December 2006 14:34, Ryan Murray wrote: The LDAP schema has been updated to include several new fields: * Mail disable message * Mail greylisting * Mail sender verification callouts * Mail whitelist * Mail RBL list * Mail RHSBL list Now THAT is a nice christmas present! Thanks a LOT to all who were involved. cheers -- vbi -- Could this mail be a fake? (Answer: No! - http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro) pgpPdp5SOHnes.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: db.debian.org (and related infrastructure) updates
Yo again! Web frontend is not, contrary to the announcement, updated yet for whitelist, rbl, rhbl :-( And the mail frontend doesn't like my emails (probably either it doesn't like subkey signatures or it doesn't like PGP/MIME). I could add the fields with ldapmodify though, so I assume they do work. Again, thanks. On Saturday 30 December 2006 14:34, Ryan Murray wrote: * Mail RHSBL list Is this tested against the client hostname or against the envelope sender or both? (postfix has reject_rhsbl_sender and reject_rhsbl_client, I don't know exim at all.) cheers -- vbi -- Das liegt aber nicht an Gimp, sondern am Huhn. ;) -- Klaus Knopper pgpxT6EhogVnU.pgp Description: PGP signature
