On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Andreas Barth wrote:
Buildd administration — architecture@buildd.debian.org
lists a couple of people. And also a working mail address. Contacting
people via a role account is always prefered.
Yeah, that’s whom I contacted first, on Friday. It was just not
getting any
* Thorsten Glaser (t.gla...@tarent.de) [141016 09:39]:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Andreas Barth wrote:
Buildd administration — architecture@buildd.debian.org
lists a couple of people. And also a working mail address. Contacting
people via a role account is always prefered.
Yeah, that’s whom
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:10:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
You didn't ask a wider audience, you whined to one, and that on
something totally unrelated to the thing you really wanted.
The mails to the @buildd addresses are of course private to those behind the
list, so the peanut gallery on
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
But it’s now resolved, thanks Philipp!
Wrong again, I dist-upgraded the chroots and gave back the package.
But as before, facts are difficult.
Likewise, you could have pointed this out without being quite so condecending.
Uhm yes. Philipp
On 2014-10-16 10:10, Andreas Barth wrote:
Wrong again, I dist-upgraded the chroots and gave back the package.
But as before, facts are difficult.
FWIW, you did not update neither the d-d nor the buildd.d.o thread about
that. Which means that the other people think that it's still open.
Kind
On 2014-10-16 10:23, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
The mails to the @buildd addresses are of course private to those
behind the
list, so the peanut gallery on -devel can't see what tg wrote nor judge
for
ourselves whether it was whiny or not, but characterising it as such
here is
not helpful. TG's
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Wookey wrote:
I _think_ we don't do this because the upgrading uses a lot of time on
buildds, especially slow ones. I did do this (build in snapshot,
Right.
the same packages over and over until the snapshot was updated (which
was manual and done approx weekly). This
Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org (2014-10-15):
Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/07/msg00446.html
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org (2014-10-15):
Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
Yeah, I tend to forget it.
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
Ah wonderful, a set of 0
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
Ah wonderful, a set of 0 people. No surprise then.
Unfortunately that page is maintained manually.
According to LDAP it appears to be wouter, he,
Hi Thorsten,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:05:21PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
from dak, because the version is neither in testing (yet or
still) and not in unstable (any more) and so not known to
dak. The buildd admins do not react on this and happily
ignore eMails asking them,
* Thorsten Glaser (t.gla...@tarent.de) [141015 16:20]:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org (2014-10-15):
Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
Yeah, I tend to forget it.
* Thorsten Glaser (t...@mirbsd.de) [141013 12:05]:
sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
either…
So we need either a technical, or a policy-ical, or a human,
solution to this problem, right?
Or we just have
* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) [141015 17:22]:
[ powerpc buildd admins ]
According to LDAP it appears to be wouter, he, pkern.
This list is incomplete. There are more people, especially there is a
group who is buildd admin on all buildds, and tends to fix problems if
they are known. (However,
Hi all,
it still happens, occasionally, that buildd chroots are not
updated, which leads to mksh builds refer old versions of
gcc or some libc (used when linking the mksh-static binary)
in its Built-Using field. The buildd admin gets a REJECT
from dak, because the version is neither in testing
+++ Thorsten Glaser [2014-10-13 12:05 +0200]:
Hi all,
sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
either…
I _think_ we don't do this because the upgrading uses a lot of time on
buildds, especially slow ones. I did
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:17:19AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
+++ Thorsten Glaser [2014-10-13 12:05 +0200]:
sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
either…
I _think_ we don't do this because the upgrading uses a
17 matches
Mail list logo
