Steve Langasek wrote: [snip] > > > So those should get added to P-a-s instead. > > Well, but that'd be something for the buildd-admin to collect. > > (Or maintainers of the packages, but that doesn't seem to fashionable > > nowadays...) > > Um... no. This is *porter* work; one does not have to be a buildd admin to > analyze a build failure to see whether the package belongs in P-a-s, and > there's no reason that the buildd admins alone should bear the > responsibility for figuring out whether a permanent build failure should be > fixed or ignored. (Maintainers probably need to be involved in this > process, but usually maintainers don't have the requisite knowledge about > all our ports to make informed decisions on their own.)
FWIW, I started to send mips patches for P-a-s, following the procedure outlined at the top of this file. There was neither a response nor any other discernable action. > Saying "that's the buildd admin's job" about tasks that don't *need* to be > done by the buildd admin is a pretty effective way of encouraging the > problems that the Vancouver proposal sought to address, where two or three > people end up carrying all the ports, and all their time is eaten up by > maintaining the buildds and giving back failed packages with no time for > following through on the permanent failures (which, even though they > sometimes represent a minority of Maybe-Failed packages usually account for > a majority of the actual work needing done). A while later, and rather by accident, Ryan Murray told me on IRC (paraphrased) "Of course they were ignored, you aren't a buildd admin. Send them to me." So I did. Ryan acknowledged to have received them with (again paraphrased) "Well, it's not so urgent." This was about 6 weeks ago. > > >>weechat: don't know, error on dh-strip on 5 archs, no bug filed > > > >>That's 2 out of 7 which need actual debugging, both not arm-specific. > > > > And only 1/7 where some action of the buildd maintainer is needed > > > at this time to get something build. > > The dep-wait is well inside the "some action of the buildd maintainer is > > needed". The needed P-a-s entries could be handeled centrally if the > > problem description is "pile of maybe-failed packages". > > Wonderful. Nice to see that you think P-a-s entries are somebody else's > problem that should be "handled centrally". It appears to be the idea of the people with write access to P-a-s. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]