Le Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:40:25PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit : > ]] Philipp Kern > > | Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further > | distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed > | to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically > | sent to the maintainer.) > > Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get > mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures, and I believe I'm > competent to at least usually see if something fails because of > something obvious or if it looks like a chroot/buildd issue. FWIW, > Ubuntu mails maintainers on build failures (at least in PPAs), and I've > found that to work well.
I would be happy to get build logs as well, or at least a link to an URL where they are dowloadable withouth HTML processing. For the moment, I only found raw logs in /srv/buildd.debian.org/db on buildd.debian.org, but that directory is not served over HTTP, so this excludes non-DDs for raw retrieval. (I am also wondering where to find the cryptographic signatures, but this is orthogonal to this discussion). By the way, I have submitted the whishlist bug #605763 to ask if it were possible to have sbuild use reproducible file paths during build, to minimise diffs between build logs. That might help to compare autobuilt and locally-built packages, as suggested in <http://lists.debian.org/20110213194931.gb2...@khazad-dum.debian.net>. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110214042738.ga18...@merveille.plessy.net
