On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:57:34AM +, Paul Hedderly wrote:
> I can happily provide two Sun SS20's , one or two U1's and an Acorn RiscPC
> to help build ARM and Sparc. I'd happily give them a basic install, provide
> broadband
> access to them and hand over control to the buildd team.
32-bit S
I can happily provide two Sun SS20's , one or two U1's and an Acorn RiscPC
to help build ARM and Sparc. I'd happily give them a basic install, provide
broadband
access to them and hand over control to the buildd team.
--
Paul
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:21:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>...
> Catchup has started to make some progress; the current disaster buildd
> seems to be arm, now that mipsel has mostly caught up and s390 has
> turned around. So long as at least a single buildd arch is having
> trouble, we
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is simply a condition of ENOTIME. The buildd is setup, activate them
> needs 10 minutes, adding a entries to the ACL needs less. Setting up a
> w-b needs 1h, doing the work by hand needs much more time.
But that should not stop you from attacking the
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:17:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I was speaking specifically of porter uploads; my discussion is about
> the specific case of s390 complaining that they can't do their porting
> work (which includes simply compiling packages) because the w-b admins
> won't add
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:00:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> > aka gpg key.
> I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
even with that snippet you don't know me. You just know, that there
Hi,
Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> I was speaking specifically of porter uploads; my discussion is about
> the specific case of s390 complaining that they can't do their porting
> work (which includes simply compiling packages) because the w-b admins
> won't add whatever buildd. My point is that porters
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
>
> The BinNMU procedure covers the "a binary was built incorrectly and I can
> fix it without touching the source" situation. Third-level Debian
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
The BinNMU procedure covers the "a binary was built incorrectly and I can
fix it without touching the source" situation. Third-level Debian version
numbers and all.
What we're talking about here,
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 09:59]:
> > If the information in the Developers' Reference is no longer
> > correct, then fix it
>
> Can you please give a specific section so we know what information
> you're talking about exac
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 09:59]:
> If the information in the Developers' Reference is no longer
> correct, then fix it
Can you please give a specific section so we know what information
you're talking about exactly.
[The following is a clarification of what I said gi
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:14:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > The step for you to become trusted is easy: apply for NM. A few years
> > ago, I would've happily become your advocate. This /must/ mean you're
> > trustworth
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> aka gpg key.
I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One problem, as you say above, is that random people building packages
> are more likely to break things because they don't know about
> architecture specific problems.
I have not said anything about "random people", but rat
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So do it on machines that *are* hosted by DDs. Geez.
>
> Still not debian admin approved.
The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:14:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The step for you to become trusted is easy: apply for NM. A few years
> ago, I would've happily become your advocate. This /must/ mean you're
> trustworthy, even though you're not trusted yet. After all, trustworthy
> means 'deserv
Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 14:30 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> > No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> > Those are quite different things. As I am not the DA
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:30:32PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> > No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> > Those are quite different things. As I am not
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> Those are quite different things. As I am not the DAM, I don't
> decide whether or not to trust you on behalf of Debian.
I
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:47:22PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > As you well know, the problem was that the buildds were run by
> > non-developers for whom we have no trust relationship, not that they
> > were being run by a d
* Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 02:42]:
> I believe the wanna-build admins don't want builds that have neither
> been suitably tested (such as the build that accompanies the source in
> the maintainer's upload) nor built by one of the official buildds to be
> uploaded.
>
> The main re
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> We did that last year for m68k, mips, mipsel and alpha and it produced
>> a great flame since some machines where hosted by non DDs and none of
>> them were approved by the debian admin team. Th
Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:51:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> > hooked into w-b to upload packa
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:51:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> hooked into w-b to upload packages.
I believe the wanna-build admins don't want
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If
> > > > > they
> > > > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> >
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If
> > > > they
> > > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > > > This not only happens to s390 now but already happen
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:07:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
> > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > > This not only ha
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:07:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
> > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > This not only happens to s390 now but already happened in the past to m68
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
> don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> This not only happens to s390 now but already happened in the past to m68k
> for example.
Ok, let's
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We did that last year for m68k, mips, mipsel and alpha and it produced
> a great flame since some machines where hosted by non DDs and none of
> them were approved by the debian admin team. The opinions (including
> an RM too) expressed in that fl
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:38:44PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | So, you call me not trustworthy, although it was *me* to first help out m68k
> | when kullervo was unable to keep up with package building?
> You are not a DD, so Debian does not have a trust relationship with
> you. It has not
* Ingo Juergensmann
| On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
| > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
| > > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > > > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
| >
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
> > > autobuilding and do it thems
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
> > autobuilding and do it themselves; all the software is free software.
[..]
> We did that last year f
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> > For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
>> > building these archs.
>>
>> As Bastian Blank sai
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:59:55 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
>> It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
>> don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
>or they just have their reason
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > > > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > > > >team does: b
Hi Ingo,
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> > > >hooked into w-b to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> > >hooked into w-b to upload packages.
> > Why are some architectures refused
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> >hooked into w-b to upload packages.
>
> Why are some architectures refused the same service that others get?
On 14 Mar 2005 22:51:23 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
>> a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elmo, not s390...
>
>The s390 por
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
> > building these archs.
>
> As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
> building these archs.
As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elm
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png
For the past week, mipsel has been chugging mightily and made huge
progress. But s390 has slipped worse and worse, with only a single
machine building packages. Meanwhile, arm made a brief, but valiant
attempt, but has been plummeting, and is no
44 matches
Mail list logo
