On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 04:18:24PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 09:25:07AM -0400, Mike Furr wrote: > > How does it handle different architectures? E.g. does it show a package > > being built if it exists on at least 1 arch, or does it have to be built on > > all arches? For transitions, we clearly need the latter. Also, a nice > > At the moment it only takes into account i386. I thought about that page > to spot which packages need to be transitioned at all (i.e. which > packages no one has yet taken care of). Questions like: why the package > is not in testing yet can be answered by other means. > > Still: > > 1) the links about the relevant pages can and should be put, what do you > think of a link for each package to its "explained excuses" page? > Any other per-package link which can be useful?
What about a link to the PTS, so you get indirect access to everything there ? > 2) considering other architectures is still useful, for example ATM if > someone uploads to powerpc and the rebuild breaks on i386 we will be > fooled to consider the package as needing work, while it's not the > case. I can implement a check which looks in all architectures and > only takes into the account the more up to date. Once I had to > implement it adding a warning like "hey, the package is not in sync > on ..." would be easy to add Maybe with a different colour code ? > > thing for the TODO list would be to list the packages that are not up to > > date, but have all of their dependencies satisfied on all arches. > > Are you thinking about pinging buildd maintainers to reschedule builds > here? Isn't this information already available somewhere else, maybe for > all packages in the archive? Possibly, but it is always good to have a tool which does it in a way we control :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
