On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 04:06:50PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I would rather have maintainers spend time improving their packages
> > instead of wasting it trying to figure out why some architecture
> > fail/refuses t
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Frank Lichtenheld]
> > While I agree with the general sentiment, there is really nothing
> > "mysterious" about checking buildd.debian.org (and calling it that
> > is just finding excuses for maintainers that don't spend the
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> The actual long term solution is the packages-arch-specific file.
I assume you know something I do not, as I do not understand what you
mean by "the packages-arch-specific file", but I suspect a file is
unable to solve a problem with frustration and friction, as that
probl
[Frank Lichtenheld]
> While I agree with the general sentiment, there is really nothing
> "mysterious" about checking buildd.debian.org (and calling it that
> is just finding excuses for maintainers that don't spend the time to
> check the status of their packages).
I would rather have maintainer
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Matthew Johnson]
Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
anyon
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > [Matthew Johnson]
>> >> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
>> >> my package isn't for them, as lon
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Matthew Johnson]
> >> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
> >> my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
> >> anyone else either...
>
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU
> >> software
> >> that can be compiled on an architecture even if
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Matthew Johnson]
>> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
>> my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
>> anyone else either...
>
> I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that
[Matthew Johnson]
> Or at least didn't block testing migration. I'm happy if porters decide
> my package isn't for them, as long as it doesn't stop it being for
> anyone else either...
I agree. Perhaps a new rule should be introduced, that when a porter
flag a package as NFU on a given architect
On Wed Aug 06 10:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU
> >> software
> >> that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that
Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software
>> that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful.
>> I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which l
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software
> that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful.
> I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks any graphical output,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a pretty bad idea to NFU software
that can be compiled on an architecture even if it doesn't seem that useful.
I have the X11 libraries on my NSLU2, which lacks any graphical output, but
I use it as an X11 server.
That being said, I can see the point from
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:21:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> This seems to happen to me most often on the s390 build daemon, and has
> happened with at least 3 to 5 different packages now. (Current example
> is hpodder). In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it happen elsewhere.
> It seems t
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Back in the Old Days when I ran an Alpha buildd (years ago), things
> never got automatically marked not-for-us; that happened manually.
> After asking around on IRC a few weeks ago, there is no longer consensus
> that's how it happens now. Does anybody k
Hi,
I have been having what is a recurring problem:
One of the buildds will (apparently) randomly mark one of my packages
not-for-us. That despite the fact that the package built on that buildd
in the past, and there's no reason to suggest that architecture has been
excluded.
This then gets in
17 matches
Mail list logo
