Hi all,
it still happens, occasionally, that buildd chroots are not
updated, which leads to mksh builds refer old versions of
gcc or some libc (used when linking the mksh-static binary)
in its Built-Using field. The buildd admin gets a REJECT
from dak, because the version is neither in testing (ye
+++ Thorsten Glaser [2014-10-13 12:05 +0200]:
> Hi all,
>
>
> sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
> before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
> either…
I _think_ we don't do this because the upgrading uses a lot of time on
buildds, especially slow ones.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:17:19AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Thorsten Glaser [2014-10-13 12:05 +0200]:
> > sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
> > before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
> > either…
>
> I _think_ we don't do this because the upgrading u
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Wookey wrote:
> I _think_ we don't do this because the upgrading uses a lot of time on
> buildds, especially slow ones. I did do this (build in snapshot,
Right.
> the same packages over and over until the snapshot was updated (which
> was manual and done approx weekly). This
Thorsten Glaser (2014-10-15):
> Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/07/msg00446.html
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser (2014-10-15):
> > Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
>
> Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
Yeah, I tend to forget it.
> https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
Ah wonderful, a set of 0 people. No s
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
>
> Ah wonderful, a set of 0 people. No surprise then.
Unfortunately that page is maintained manually.
According to LDAP it appears to be wouter, h
Hi Thorsten,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:05:21PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
> from dak, because the version is neither in testing (yet or
> still) and not in unstable (any more) and so not known to
> dak. The buildd admins do not react on this and happily
> ignore eMails asking them, polit
* Thorsten Glaser (t.gla...@tarent.de) [141015 16:20]:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Thorsten Glaser (2014-10-15):
> > > Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
> >
> > Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
>
> Yeah, I tend to forget it.
>
> > https
* Thorsten Glaser (t...@mirbsd.de) [141013 12:05]:
> sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
> before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
> either…
>
> So we need either a technical, or a policy-ical, or a human,
> solution to this problem, right?
Or we just h
* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) [141015 17:22]:
> [ powerpc buildd admins ]
> According to LDAP it appears to be wouter, he, pkern.
This list is incomplete. There are more people, especially there is a
group who is buildd admin on all buildds, and tends to fix problems if
they are known. (However, t
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Buildd administration — @buildd.debian.org
> lists a couple of people. And also a working mail address. Contacting
> people via a role account is always prefered.
Yeah, that’s whom I contacted first, on Friday. It was just not
getting any sort of respo
* Thorsten Glaser (t.gla...@tarent.de) [141016 09:39]:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > Buildd administration — @buildd.debian.org
> > lists a couple of people. And also a working mail address. Contacting
> > people via a role account is always prefered.
>
> Yeah, that’s whom I
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:10:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> You didn't ask a wider audience, you whined to one, and that on
> something totally unrelated to the thing you really wanted.
The mails to the @buildd addresses are of course private to those behind the
list, so the peanut gallery on
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > But it’s now resolved, thanks Philipp!
> >
> > Wrong again, I dist-upgraded the chroots and gave back the package.
> > But as before, facts are difficult.
>
> Likewise, you could have pointed this out without being quite so condecending.
Uhm ye
On 2014-10-16 10:10, Andreas Barth wrote:
Wrong again, I dist-upgraded the chroots and gave back the package.
But as before, facts are difficult.
FWIW, you did not update neither the d-d nor the buildd.d.o thread about
that. Which means that the other people think that it's still open.
Kind
On 2014-10-16 10:23, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
The mails to the @buildd addresses are of course private to those
behind the
list, so the peanut gallery on -devel can't see what tg wrote nor judge
for
ourselves whether it was whiny or not, but characterising it as such
here is
not helpful. TG's ma
17 matches
Mail list logo
