On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:44:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think it would hurt if maintainers whose packages are in this state
> > would email the relevant @buildd.debian.org addresses and cc:
> > debian-release on the message -- n
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I don't think it would hurt if maintainers whose packages are in this state
>> would email the relevant @buildd.debian.org addresses and cc:
>> debian-release on the message -- now, rather than waitin
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:44:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> For example, if even *one* buildd maintainer doesn't requeue with some
> kind of promptness, then the only way to deal with it will be to make
> a new upload, which will force a recompile everywhere.
This is only valid on arch
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it would hurt if maintainers whose packages are in this state
> would email the relevant @buildd.debian.org addresses and cc:
> debian-release on the message -- now, rather than waiting for the buildds to
> be fixed. Hopefully, this would
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 05:10:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:41:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > That won't help, especially not in this case. Those
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:17:59PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> * Thomas Bushnell BSG [Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:13:42 -0800]:
>> > Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
>> That's not relevant, really. What matters is if they r
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Screwing up in the postrm of a package in Build-Depends is about the
>> worst you can do to the current buildd. It is pretty sure to cripple
>> them all. The inability of buildds to rebuild thei
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG [Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:10:57 -0800]:
>
>> ONCE IT'S CLEANED UP, what should I do to get the package rebuilt?
>> Seems to me, I should requeue it. Nothing else is an advertised or
>> reliable way. Even the @buildd.debian.org I'm now
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:35:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:13:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > > Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
> >
> > As far as I can t
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:10:57 -0800]:
> ONCE IT'S CLEANED UP, what should I do to get the package rebuilt?
> Seems to me, I should requeue it. Nothing else is an advertised or
> reliable way. Even the @buildd.debian.org I'm now told is not
> reliable.
Thomas, just apply you
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ONCE IT'S CLEANED UP, what should I do to get the package rebuilt?
> Seems to me, I should requeue it. Nothing else is an advertised or
> reliable way. Even the @buildd.debian.org I'm now told is not
> reliable.
Which does bring up a second ques
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:41:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > That won't help, especially not in this case. Those who manage the
> > > autobuilder are best suited to know when the autobuilder
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:41:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>
>>What I'm saying is that once it's cleaned up, I have two options:
>>
>>* ask for my package to be requeued;
>>* do another upload.
>>
>>And I'm almost certain that the latter option is faster, and
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:41:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That won't help, especially not in this case. Those who manage the
> > autobuilder are best suited to know when the autobuilder will be fixed,
> > since they are the ones who have
* Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 22:55]:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:57:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > See why the current buildd system is obsolete?
> > I've never disagreed with the fact that the current buildd system is
> > creaking.
> > What would it take for m
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:06PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > or mail the appropriate buildd admin listed on http://buildd.net/ -
> > maybe the addresses are not uptodate anymore, but that's because not
> > all buildd admins cooperate...
> Why not list this address at the end of each ar
[Ingo Juergensmann]
> mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> or mail the appropriate buildd admin listed on http://buildd.net/ -
> maybe the addresses are not uptodate anymore, but that's because not
> all buildd admins cooperate...
Why not list this address at the end of each arch-specific log page?
For
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:57:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > See why the current buildd system is obsolete?
> I've never disagreed with the fact that the current buildd system is
> creaking.
> What would it take for multibuild to succeed? or something else?
People who care and have
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:36:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I'm not trying to grind an axe or complain, I'm seeking information
> > and to move the process along expeditiously because it's blocking a
> > lot more than just an xfree86 upgrade.
> For example, once this is fixed, how do
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Screwing up in the postrm of a package in Build-Depends is about the
> worst you can do to the current buildd. It is pretty sure to cripple
> them all. The inability of buildds to rebuild their chroots from
> scratch doesn't help. Shit happens, st
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> See why the current buildd system is obsolete?
I've never disagreed with the fact that the current buildd system is
creaking.
What would it take for multibuild to succeed? or something else?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not complaining about the slow archs, and the m68k buildd failure
> will surely be noticed. It has not, however, been retried. Why?
It will most likely be retried manually on a large system. The
wanna-build state is then usualy left as "buil
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:35:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I'm not complaining about the slow archs, and the m68k buildd failure
> will surely be noticed. It has not, however, been retried. Why?
Because the buildds are currently doing other stuff?
> I'm asking for *information*. H
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:22:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Moreover, because it seems to be extremely difficult to know who
> > manages which buildd's and get responses from them,
>
> Have you tried @buildd.debian.org?
Nope. This addre
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:22:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Moreover, because it seems to be extremely difficult to know who
> manages which buildd's and get responses from them,
Have you tried @buildd.debian.org?
> I suspect that once it's cleaned up the fastest way to get my package
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not trying to grind an axe or complain, I'm seeking information
> and to move the process along expeditiously because it's blocking a
> lot more than just an xfree86 upgrade.
For example, once this is fixed, how do I ask the buildd maintainers
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:13:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
>
> As far as I can tell you: the m68k buildd people will have noticed that
> problem much earlier than
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:13:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
As far as I can tell you: the m68k buildd people will have noticed that
problem much earlier than you.
Furthermore, I don't know if that's a problem of the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:17:59PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG [Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:13:42 -0800]:
>
> > Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
>
> That's not relevant, really. What matters is if they read their logs,
> and they certainly d
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait :
>
> So the new xfree86 has been built on most archs, but is still not
> built on sparc, mips, and m68k.
If that can help, I can test the build process under sparc, tell me if
one more sparc box is welcome in the "test room" ;)
Regards.
--
Adeodato Simà <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG [Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:13:42 -0800]:
>
> > Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
>
> That's not relevant, really. What matters is if they read their logs,
> and they certainly do. (So, no need to t
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:13:42 -0800]:
> Do the buildd people read this list? How do we get this cleaned up?
That's not relevant, really. What matters is if they read their logs,
and they certainly do. (So, no need to tell buildd admins the obvious,
or at least that's wha
So the new xfree86 has been built on most archs, but is still not
built on sparc, mips, and m68k.
The sparc and mips failures look like their buildd chroots are still
corrupted.
The m68k build ran out of disk space:
ar clq libglx.a glx/?*.o
ar: libglx.a: No space left on device
make[6
33 matches
Mail list logo
