Re: Rogue autobuilders (was: Re: New ARM autobuilders)

2006-12-21 Thread Wesley J. Landaker
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 09:19, Michael Banck wrote: > On December 17th, 2006, Aurelien Jarno wrote on his blog: > > As [EMAIL PROTECTED] is everything but responsive (well if you can > > assign a level of responsiveness to /dev/null), I have decided to act. > > I have installed QEMU on an 8-w

Re: Rogue autobuilders

2006-12-20 Thread Julien BLACHE
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Running rogue autobuilders does not help Debian in the long term, and > will only lead to useless tension. The best way to help a lagging port Running rogue autobuilders as you put it has saved a couple of architectures and unstuck t

Re: Rogue autobuilders (was: Re: New ARM autobuilders)

2006-12-20 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Michael Banck a écrit : > Running rogue autobuilders does not help Debian in the long term, and > will only lead to useless tension. The best way to help a lagging port > is to identify arch-specific build failures which need real porting (and and packages never uploaded, packages never

Rogue autobuilders (was: Re: New ARM autobuilders)

2006-12-20 Thread Michael Banck
uild data-base and the buildd admins. Running rogue autobuilders does not help Debian in the long term, and will only lead to useless tension. The best way to help a lagging port is to identify arch-specific build failures which need real porting (and are not just dep-waits) and tackle those, IMHO (I