Anthony Towns <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:37:27AM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: >> On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 13:13:36 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >> > -vote dropped > > And readded apparently. Do we really have to have these conversations > across multiple lists? > >> > > i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ >> > > years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as >> > > nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned >> > > technical constraints. >> I didn't thought of Aurelien, but of a few other persons, who are acting >> as buildd maintainers for experimental and non-free packages. > > Experimental and non-free packages go to the official archive... I'm > not seeing what you're asking for here.
Are you so overworked, or are you deliberately "forgetting"? It has been suggested multiple times in the past to use existing or new hardware and add it to the set of standard autobuilders. Many arches do not meet the redundancy requirement, and we don't have autobuilders for i386 at all AFAIK. Moreover, the current buildd admin's apparently don't have adequate time to communicate, which could be ameliorated by adding people. Even if nobody had asked so far, we should ask people who seem capable of doing it. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
