Le Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
I think you're confusing the buildd admin with the porters. I expect
porters to read the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, I don't expect
the same from the buildd admin.
Dear all,
Maybe the [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists should be read by
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,
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
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 07:58:34AM +0100, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't you find it a bit hypocrit to have x86 uploads go directly to the
archive, and not allowing even a single day delay which would allow to stop
unclean DD-build-boxes breakage and a clean state, and on the other
Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 à 16:45 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
So first of all, neither the debian-arm list, nor the #debian-arm channel,
nor his blog are a communication medium that's guaranteed to reach the arm
buildd maintainer *or* the buildd local admins. For the former, you want
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
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems common sense! Debian has a serious problem if you have to
write everything down.
A buildd maintainer must be able to type Unix commands on a
keyboard.
And the said keyboard must be connected one way or another to the
said buildd, which
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:36:45AM +,
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 43 lines which said:
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
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:39:13AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
All started with this email:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2006/08/msg00151.html
ARM was *in danger*, a lot of stuff (java, xulrunner, mono, ...) were
not
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Please show where reading everything on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
given as a requirement for buildd maintainership.
It seems common sense!
Huh? It seems common sense that most subscribers ignore at least some
list
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:20:30AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
An arm buildd maintainer not reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] is simply not
doing his job as buildd maintainer. You can't pretend to be the one
handling builds for the whole archive while not following discussions
around problems
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't you find it a bit hypocrit to have x86 uploads go directly to the
archive, and not allowing even a single day delay which would allow to
stop unclean DD-build-boxes breakage and a clean state, and on the
other
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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Some of the comments and questions in this thread suggest gaps in
understanding of the autobuilders, which I think warrant an answer.
Hopefully this doesn't lead to more flames and recriminations...
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Aurelien mailed debian-arm,
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So, why :
* does aurelien initiative causes troubles ?
If the packages he uploads have already been built (but not uploaded) by the
autobuilders, the packages in the archive will not correspond to the public
build logs,
I happened to have had access to the internet during my vacation, and
I happened to read a backlog on #debian-release that frightens me:
15:52 aj | # unilateral action to run an emulated buildd -- all arm
changes sidelined until fixed.
15:52aba | oh, where?
15:52 aj |
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I happened to have had access to the internet during my vacation, and
I happened to read a backlog on #debian-release that frightens me:
15:52 aj | # unilateral action to run an emulated buildd -- all arm changes
sidelined until fixed.
15:52aba | oh, where?
Luk Claes a écrit :
How did Aurelien get wanna-build access for his buildd without
explaining to the respective team how the buildd was maintained in the
first place or did he not ask for it...
I have setup a wanna-build database (I am the one running the
wanna-build database for
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Aurelien mailed debian-arm, went to #debian-arm, had no response. He
then warn about his intention [1] to run qemu-based autobuilders to fill
the gap due to broken arm buildds. He did that on the open, and got ...
zero answers.
[this discussion is off-topic on -devel, please follow-up on -project]
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:51:55PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
How did Aurelien get wanna-build access for his buildd
He didn't, it's a rogue autobuilder. Which is the reason it got
blacklisted.
or did he not ask for it...
20 matches
Mail list logo
