| Stephen Frost 2005-03-15, 6:00 pm |
| * Stephen Gran (sgran@debian.org) wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
>
> There was a later clarification (from Andreas Barth? - I can't remember,
> it's something like 1000 messages ago now  that addressed those
> statements in a better way. There were concerns that they were
> attempting to address, namely - the inability of the buildd setup to
> continue should a machine fail, and the long time it takes important
> fixes to be built from source on some architectures.
Yes, Andreas actually did what I had asked Steve to do- give us the
reasons behind the rules.
> The clarification made it fairly clear to me that if this is achieved by
> the porter team running clusters with distcc and magic smoke, and has a
> back bedroom full of spare parts, that should satisfy the criteria. The
> point was that Debian's core infrastructure shouldn't be responsible for
> limping along a dead architecture that is essentially unavailable, and
> that security fixes and the like have to be done in a more timely
> manner.
Ah, now here's a new one that I'm going to have to ask you to clarify:
What is "Debian's core infrastructure"? Is that wanna-build access? Is
that all the buildds? Only buildds for some archs, what archs, why
those archs? I think wanna-build access and the ability to upload
packages are important things an arch needs to be able to do. I think
having testing and stable is important too. I can understand *some*
criteria for getting access to these resources (5 DDs willing to sign
off on the arch, at least 2 buildds, whatever) but not those outlined
above...
> I see no reason why a team of interested individuals can't make this
> happen - magic smoke is cheap, after all
It's still not entirely clear that distcc is the solution to the problem
here. Additionally, I'd rather have DSAs for things as they become
available than forcing us to wait till all archs are done to make a DSA,
in general. If that takes care of the N <= 2 requirement, then great.
Stephen
|