* Steve Langasek [Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:46:19 -0700]:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:40:30PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > Based on what I've seen in other threads, the order in which packages
> > get built on a buildd is a function of, among perhaps other factors,
> > its priority and section. I uploaded icu several days ago and have
> > watched other packages (including my other uploads) sneak in front of
> > it that shouldn't have based on these two factors.
> TTBOMK, new binary packages should not affect the ordering of the
> package in the build queue. The sort criteria are, in order of
> precedence: the upload target; out-of-date vs. uncompiled; the source
> package priority; and the source package section.
Both in hppa and in m68k, icu is listed in state "uncompiled", so that
explains.
> > The only thing I can think of is that the latest
> > icu builds two binary packages that have not previously existed
> > because it is a library with a new soname. Does that impact it?
Well, this is quite an special case, since afaics the new version of
the source package "icu" does not share a single binary with the old
version. Perhaps that's gonna be it.
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
explained by stupidity.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
