On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:01:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > The second most significant area of concern, for me, is having people being > > proactive about dealing with per-architecture build failures. There's no > > particular reason that should be the buildd admins' or the release team's > > area of responsibility, either;
> I agree with you on the "release team" bit; however, I don't think it's > unfair to request that buildd admins handle build failures. If buildd > admins of some other architectures can't keep up because they're > handling all buildd hosts for 3 (or so) architectures, then the problem > isn't that they're asked to do things that aren't their responsability; > rather, the problem would be that they're trying to do more than they > can handle. I don't see any particular reason that these two areas of responsibility (chroot maintenance/package signing, and FTBFS reporting/fixing) *shouldn't* be distinct; looking at the number of unreported FTBFS problems, we could obviously be doing a much better job of reporting these to maintainers, but that's a pretty time-consuming task that requires more effort than just figuring out that the failure wasn't the buildd's fault. And, anyone interested in and knowledgeable about the port can step in to help with processing FTBFS problems. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
