|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > February 2004 > Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
|
|
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-11, 9:33 pm |
| Op do 12-02-2004, om 10:23 schreef Tim Dijkstra:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:52:47 +1000
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>
>
> These people do not 'own' these jobs, do they?
More or less, yeah, they do. If you're doing the work, you don't want
others to stand in your way because, hey, you don't "own" it, and they
want to be part of it too.
> I would say that debian as a project should decide if help is needed or not.
Hah.
That would probably just result in a lot of bickering, flaming, and no
actual work being done.
> Based on some
> objective measure of 'doing the job' of course.
That's too vague. If you're really serious about this, work it out first
before suggesting it.
(The reason I'm saying this is that it's my believe such a measure would
either be impossible to implement, or take way too much time to do, time
that could be more valuably spent by actually doing the work)
[...]
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-11, 11:34 pm |
| Op do 12-02-2004, om 13:06 schreef Tim Dijkstra:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:09:07 +0100
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
>
> It was meant to be abstract.
Yes, I know that. But I'm saying that the assumption that lies at the
base of your statement above ("it's reasonably possible to work out an
objective metric that can tell whether you're doing a job good or not")
is incorrect; to do that, you'd need someone with a thorough knowledge
of the subject to work on the metric, which they would percieve as a
waste of time (we're not a company, we're a bunch of volunteers). So,
unless you can come up with something that would indeed be objective,
I'm afraid your arguments don't hold.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Scott James Remnant 2004-02-12, 7:35 am |
| On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 19:41, Will Newton wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Feb 2004 2:51 pm, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>
> A lot of people seem to be doing the wrong thing. Has Mr. Troup documented the
> right thing, or does everybody just guess?
>
The right thing would be,
"James, if you've got a moment, could you look at X for me? Thanks"
The wrong thing would be,
"James, do X now!" ... 5 minutes later ... "James, why haven't you done
X?" ... 5 minutes later ... "James is ignoring me" ... 5 minutes later
.... "I want James removed from his position"
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
| |
| Scott James Remnant 2004-02-12, 8:33 pm |
| On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 00:55, Will Newton wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Feb 2004 10:18 pm, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>
> "I'm not going to play any more" it sounds like to me. I'm pretty sure the
> skins involved in this are thick enough.
>
Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!
HITLER! HITLER! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!
Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! HITLER! HITLER! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!
Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! HITLER! HITLER! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!
Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Third Reich! Third
Reich! ohhh! Third Reich! It's the Third Reich!
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-12, 9:33 pm |
| Op vr 13-02-2004, om 06:14 schreef John Goerzen:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 05:08:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> You ad hominem attacks frankly do nothing to sway me, and I would hope
> that others respond likewise.
rotfl. Ad hominem? Where did aj say "You, sir, are an idiot" or
something similar? Quoted mail was about what is on-topic and what is
not, on this mailinglist. There's nothing ad hominem about that.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-13, 2:34 am |
| Op vr 13-02-2004, om 16:14 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> ignored. One can start to work around it (like asking someone else to
> build qt-x11-free) instead of waiting for a month in case he is
> working on the problem but just not telling.
You're exaggerating; qt-x11-free hasn't even been in unstable for a
month.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-13, 11:33 pm |
| Op za 14-02-2004, om 09:56 schreef Eduard Bloch:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Anthony Towns [Sat, Feb 14 2004, 05:41:51PM]:
>
> And is that the reason for making autobuild-trials on other arches a
> real pain for maintainers with packages in experimental? I see no good
> reason for not running autobuilders on experimental.
I see two of them:
* Resource problems. The autobuilder infrastructure has been built
to support unstable, stable security updates, and, occasionally,
testing-proposed-updates (doesn't happen too often, but it's
there and it'll need to be built). Adding experimental to that
would require extra systems for some ports (I'm not sure, e.g.,
m68k has the surplus cpu power required currently).
* Doing experimental autobuilds would require a lot more from the
autobuilder maintainer; after all, the idea is that if one
expects a package to break, it's being put in experimental. This
means that an experimental chroot is much more likely to break,
so would put an extra burden on the autobuilder maintainer.
Me, I wouldn't have any problem adding an experimental chroot and
starting builds of packages in experimental, as long as it's clear that
unstable is our first priority, and that there is no guarantee that a
package in experimental is ever built by a buildd.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-13, 11:33 pm |
| Op za 14-02-2004, om 10:44 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract
>
> Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
>
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
> community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.
>
> How can you say you will place interest of people not having any say
> in how Debian acts first in your priorities?
"We will be *guided* by the needs of our users [...]" (emphasis mine,
but you probably saw that already). That doesn't mean "we'll jump at
their every whim", or even "we'll do whatever our users tell us to do".
It means we'll listen to them, and let their opinions and remarks
influence our decisions, but that ultimately the Debian Developers will
be the ones who finally take the decision, not the users.
> Please, amend the Debian social contract, if it does not reflect
> reality.
It does, but your interpretation of it doesn't.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-02-14, 12:33 am |
| Op za 14-02-2004, om 11:33 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> He is partly right complaining about failing packages that fail due to
> an RC bug in the toolchain (or not yet compiled packags). Its partly a
> problem in the buildd/wanna-build implementation and the buildd admins
> job to keep an eye on. In the case of build-essential packages a
> Dep-Wait will also not work right since sbuild does not update
> installed packages unless the source needs it.
You're completely missing the ball here. Build-depends and
build-conflicts have been invented exactly to fight this kind of thing.
If you have a problem with some part of the toolchain, adding the right
build-depends and/or build-conflicts is the right thing to do; when
sbuild (buildd's building component) sees that the build-depends and/or
build-conflicts are not satisfied by packages that are installed in the
chroot right now, it will generally do the right thing, i.e., update the
package in question.
[...]
> FYI:
> There is no way to have a package Dep-Wait on a bug, which would be
> the real solution to the problem. In most cases I think setting a
> Dep-Wait to the next version of the faulty package is the best
> solution, the RC bug will probably be fixed by then.
Again, that's superfluous. This is what "failed" and the "Should I
build?" mails are for. Every time I get a "Should I build?" mail, I
check why the package failed previously, and if the message listed in
wanna-build contains a bug number, I'll check whether that bug is still
open. Of course, that only works on machines that do have access to
wanna-build, which is probably why you didn't see those mails yet...
There's no real reason to implement your suggestion...
> Even more stupid is setting packages with missing Build-Depends to
> failed instead of Dep-Wait (yes, that still happens).
There are (exceptional) cases where that isn't true (although I can't
come up with a good example right now).
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
Most people have two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason, and
the real reason
| |
| Scott James Remnant 2004-02-25, 2:33 pm |
| On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 19:46, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [2004-02-2317:39]:
>
> Well, he obviously was alive, but that doesn't change the fact that NM
> has changed a lot, with him not being up to date. (FWIW, you're the
> only applicant he ever had.)
>
I trust some kind of mental or emotional counselling was made available
for the poor chap?
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
|
|
|
|
|