On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:34AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures. > Frankly there are not likely to be any users for hamradio on s390, mips* > arm, or m68k. Nor electronics. Instead those architectures just prevent > the migration to testing for those packages, for no good reason.
How can archs prevent the migration when the software is already uptodate, f.e. ax25-tools? http://unstable.buildd.net/cgi/package_status?unstable_all_pkg=ax25-tools&searchtype=go > I'm in favour of building all packages on all architectures (when time > permits), and FTBFS bugs should be release-critical. But do we need to > actually make those packages critical for release? For zero users? Let the user decide. But a user can only use a package, when it's there. Hence the name user... > Having half your packages prioritised last in the build queue is rather > insulting to be honest.. Instead of considering dropping archs or excluding archs from building, you should consider improving the buildd process. The current wanna-build is known to have many drawbacks. It's an ancient program that doesn't fit any longer on todays needs. Patching it to death doesn't help much, imho. http://www.buildd.net/files/Multibuild-Draft.pdf -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
