On 14 July 2008 at 08:26, Steve Langasek wrote: | On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:42:06PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > Alpha team, | | > On 14 July 2008 at 02:43, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: | > | On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:12:33PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > | > | > r-base 2.7.1-1 is listed as 19 days old and waiting for Alpha, but has | > | > seemingly been built on Alpha. | > | | > | "Built" means that it still isn't uploaded. | | > Could you please __upload__ the r-base build from about two days ago so that | > r-base can go into testing? | | > Many thanks, and thanks for Frank for the cluebat, Dirk | | debian-alpha is not the contact address for the buildd maintainer; that's | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Not that there's much point in sending requests like this asking for | packages to be uploaded because they haven't been seen for two days; as | http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?a=alpha shows, | there are quite a few packages built 2-3 days ago that have not been | uploaded yet, so this isn't a case of just a single package being | overlooked; and if every maintainer emailed every time there was a 3-day | delay in a build being signed, that would be a whole lot of | counterproductive email.
True, true, my bad. On the other hand, it would be nice if the status pages could say 'built but not transfered, maybe check other issues with arch'. I as maintainer tend to have a package-centric view and it is hard to aggregate these pieces of information. Is there an expected resolution for restoring alpha uploads ? Dirk -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
