On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Yes, let's be clear here: ARM was in danger because of a large number of > > packages that were *not buildable*, not just because they weren't built. > > The call for help was in identifying the reasons for the build failures so > > that the underlying problems could be fixed, *not* for hand-building > > packages and ignoring the implications for security support.
> I feel it's deeper than that: > now that aurélien completely stopped to upload non built packages at > all (a thing he did on a regular basis before, and just automated with > his "rogue" autobuilder) just look at [1], whereas every single arch is > keeping up quietly, arm and sparc seem to go to the deepness of hell. I > don't know who are the sparc buildd admins, but for sure, the arm port > do not seem to be that well. > [1] http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png Er, a 5-day slump during the holidays is not "the deepness of hell" -- especially when at the low point of this slump, arm was only just below the originally proposed (and ultimately unenforced) cutoff for up-to-dateness. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
