Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Hamish Moffatt wrote: ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If these are only read by a daemon, that would explain a lot. And if you know this to be true, please write this to #342548 where I requested these contact addresses to be added to http://www.debian.org/intro/organization. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Frank Küster wrote: I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If They're (usually) not sent to the build daemon itself, so no. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:05:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:24:21AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: One thing that strikes me is that in all of the emails so far, everyone is ignoring that this whole thing started because Aurelien decided to start autobuilding packages in qemu. That's not what justified the alpha problem afaict, was it ? TTBOMK, alpha was disabled primarily as a preventative measure against Aurelien or someone else deciding that the alpha build was taking too long No, it's not me I have no alpha machine, and I there is no alpha developer accessible machine. -- .''`. 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: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:58:46AM +, MJ Ray wrote: What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? AIUI, the DPL is appointed as an adviser to SPI's board, not a veto. Further down the resolution, which you snipped: snip Following informal discussions of Associated Project status with members of the community, if satisfied the SPI Board will pass a resolution inviting the project to become Associated with SPI. This resolution will state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to act for the project; it will invite the project to join with SPI according to this Framework; and it will state a date at which the invitation will lapse if not accepted. snip Yes, but sorry if this question was unclear: What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? I'll extract the exact line from the above text for you: ... state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to act for the project ... In this case, the DPL. For example, what is the relevance of the above copy-pasted block? Does debian's invitation state that only the DPL is authorised to act, or is the Secretary authorised to act by sending other decisions to SPI, or is this an undefined thing that the spi-board are showing public unity about, or something else? If only the DPL is authorised to act in SPI's eyes, is that SPI interfering in the decision-making of the project? (by ignoring most of the processes) In case anyone hasn't noticed, it seems very difficult to get anything like a straight answer out of most of the current SPI board lately. Try it for yourself. Fun for all the debian family. Knock one over, win a coconut and five tons of flax! Prehaps you should ask SPI, rather than debian-vote. Neil -- weasel dpkg: shut up dpkg No, I won't, and you can't make me. :P weasel hah. _I_ can signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:18:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:36AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: This is a two-way street though. Aurelien was trying to solve a problem he perceived to exist with the arm port. His solution has been rejected, but is the original problem being addressed? ] I am really upset by the way the ARM build daemons are managed. The ] packages are not uploaded regularly, with sometimes three days between ] two uploads. [...] ] ] All of that resulted in ARM being the slowest architecture to build ] packages. [...] -- http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png Strangely the things has improved recently, this is even visible on the graph (around 2007.03). Also most of the packages are now requeued automagically after a few days. It wasn't the case before, and request took very long time before being proceeded [1] [2] [3]. Bye, Aurelien [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2007/01/msg00085.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/01/msg01363.html [3] http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=xulrunnerarch=armver=1.8.0.9-1 -- .''`. 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: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Frank Küster wrote: I don't imagine Aurelien's any less upset, but as far as I can see, there aren't actual problems with the way arm's keeping up at present: Another problem is that the buildd email mailbox is apparently piped to /dev/null. FWIW, buildd mail is processed by a daemon, you are probably referring to something else. I guess he's referring to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. If They're (usually) not sent to the build daemon itself, so no. That was what I meant. (Although I was not accurate I thought my intended meaning was fairly clear.) Thanks Frank. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
Neil McGovern writes (Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads): I'll extract the exact line from the above text for you: ... state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to act for the project ... In this case, the DPL. Nonsense. If we were to write a resolution in that form for Debian, it would say something like: SPI's current understanding is that the Debian Consitution[reference] defines who is authorised to act for the project and when. Currently, the Project Leader is Anthony Towns and the Secretary is Manoj Srivastava. Since there is apparently some doubt as to this, I would now add: SPI will recognise decisions taken according to the Debian Constitution. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Yes, but sorry if this question was unclear: What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? I'll extract the exact line from the above text for you: ... state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to act for the project ... In this case, the DPL. Is that an official statement of the SPI board? In case anyone hasn't noticed, it seems very difficult to get anything like a straight answer out of most of the current SPI board lately. [...] Prehaps you should ask SPI, rather than debian-vote. Oh for pity's sake! This sort of 'perhaps you should play with this red tape to make us answer' is an excellent example of avoiding questions. -- 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]
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:20:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Yes, but sorry if this question was unclear: What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? I'll extract the exact line from the above text for you: ... state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to act for the project ... In this case, the DPL. Is that an official statement of the SPI board? No, it's my reading of the resolution as a Debian Developer. Neil -- gwolf bah Germans. You just put 100 DDs in one country and then they all become friends of each other. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:11:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:00:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:35:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Uh, what's this if not peer review? It's not peer review when we discuss it later and none of us (including you) have any power to do anything about it, except via long drawn-out political processes. Err, I could change it right now if I thought that was the best thing to do. I'm not, for the reasons I've already commented on. Right, you could change dak. You can't/won't/? fix the process by which the current restrictions were added though. I don't think that's broken in the first place. The way buildd requests are dealt with... might not be broken, but is certainly suboptimal. But there's improvements in the pipeline for that (which, yes, I do need to mail about), and afaics running a qemu based buildd does nothing to improve it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:20:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:02:51AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Yes, but sorry if this question was unclear: What says SPI only listens to the DPL, not the project? I'll extract the exact line from the above text for you: ... state the SPI Board's current understanding of who is authorised to act for the project ... In this case, the DPL. Is that an official statement of the SPI board? No, it's my reading of the resolution as a Debian Developer. In other words: this doesn't show anything that supports the claim that 'SPI usually has a defined authorisationship with an associated project, this refers to people, not the project as a whole or their developers or their internal voting results' applies to debian, or that SPI's current understanding is that only the DPL is authorised to act. I know that most of SPI's recently-invited projects have been benevolent dictatorships, but I also know that SPI resolved to follow the OFTC constitution, so I don't see why SPI won't follow the debian one. SPI's project framework claims non-interference in project internal decision-making processes, so I suggest that Joey was mistaken. 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]
