| Clint Byrum 2005-03-07, 5:56 pm |
| On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 16:35 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 07:20:42PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
Wow what a flurry of discussion that message sparked. I'm glad to see
that I'm not the only one who feels strongly about this issue...
> mipsel is a little wrong in this list. We had some hardware problems on
> the 2 mipsel buildds (Same Machine, Same Manuf. Date, Same time PSU
> defect) and it took a while to get at least one up. The short-after
> death of one of the machines went past me although ryan murray did his
> best to reach me.
>
> The buildd situation on mipsel will improve during this week as we'll
> hopefully get the second machine up and running again and there are
> plans to get another 700Mhz SMP Machine up and running on the weekend.
>
> mipsel will catch up very soon.
>
I feel your pain. Its hard to keep all these buildd's for different
architectures up. That goes to the very heart of my point.
I'm not saying Debian should totally abandon all the work done by the
various architecture teams. But to have them all dependant on eachother
creates complexity, and complexity breeds problems.
Please understand.. I want Debian to be great. I want it to "release
when it is ready." Under the current system, being ready means achieving
an enormous number of goals that benefit a very small number of users.
--
Clint Byrum <cbyrum@spamaps.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|