On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:54:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:54:02PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:38AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > I think that's about it, really. The buildds are operated by humans, and > > > > all the signatures are manual although the builds themselves aren't. > > > > More specifically, buildd will start compiling a package fully > > > automatically; but it does not handle whatever happened to the build, > > > successful or otherwise, by itself -- except in a few corner-cases (when > > > the state on buildd.d.o is "maybe-given-back"). Both successful builds > > > (have to be signed) and unsuccessful builds (logs have to be interpreted, > > > appropriate action has to be taken based on the type of failure) need > > > manual intervention when they're finished. > > > it looks like a lot of work to be done manually... i suppose it is > > nearly impossible for a mortal developer to try contributing with this > > kind of work, isn't it? > > If you're interested in getting involved with buildd work, I'd suggest a > possible starting point is to monitor the build logs for your own > packages (and related packages) on buildd.debian.org -- if you can > figure out what went wrong when there is a failure, you can save buildd > admins the trouble of filing bugs in the case where it needs to be fixed > in your package, and you may be able to save buildd maintainers a bit of > time by letting them know when the problem is on the buildd. > i did not understand what you meant with "by letting them know when the problem is on the buildd". i regularly check my build logs :)
cheers domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
