On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
I said that deciding which packages should belong in P-a-s is porter work;
as is filing bugs on failed packages that shouldn't, providing patches, and
doing porter NMUs if necessary.
Again: what can I do with such a list? See the
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 05:21:46PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
I can do the analyzing, but what should I do with the results?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be a black hole.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 12:35:26AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
FAILED
But FAILED is an advisory state anyway; it doesn't directly benefit the
port, at all, to have the package listed as Failed, this is just a
convenience for
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:38:35PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 12:35:26AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
FAILED
But FAILED is an advisory state anyway; it doesn't directly benefit the
port, at
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:55:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed, for practical buildd maintainance purposes, the distinction is
not that important -- though 'Failed' is known to not benefit of a
requeue, while 'Building:Maybe-Failed' might or might not, it's unkown,
most archs
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:30:24AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
has anyone every considered a check in the buildd infrastructure to
alert someone (buildd admin and/or others) if a build is taking too long
(eg openoffice usually takes between 2-3 hours to build and the current
build has been
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 05:21:46PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
I can do the analyzing, but what should I do with the results?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to be a black hole. You'll need to find
someone willing to communicate with access to the
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
numactl
only supports i386 amd64 ia64
appears to assume intel-style stuff, would need major redesign
for other architectures
There's nothing intel-specific in here, rather it assumes NUMA support
in the kernel.
8 matches
Mail list logo
