On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:54:02PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:33:38AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > I think that's about it, really. The buildds are operated by humans, and > > > all the signatures are manual although the builds themselves aren't. > > > > More specifically, buildd will start compiling a package fully > > automatically; but it does not handle whatever happened to the build, > > successful or otherwise, by itself -- except in a few corner-cases (when > > the state on buildd.d.o is "maybe-given-back"). Both successful builds > > (have to be signed) and unsuccessful builds (logs have to be interpreted, > > appropriate action has to be taken based on the type of failure) need > > manual intervention when they're finished. > > > it looks like a lot of work to be done manually...
Scripts are nice :-)
(handling a "successful" log takes less than a second here. A failed one
may be a bit longer, depending on the type of failure)
> i suppose it is nearly impossible for a mortal developer to try
> contributing with this kind of work, isn't it?
We're all mortal :-)
But yeah, if you're not involved with buildd, it's kinda hard to get
involved. In my case, I just happened to be on m68k-build when Michael
Schmitz considered giving away maintenance of arrakis... Luck perhaps,
I don't know...?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
