jmm at inutil.org
Mon Apr 30 23:25:52 UTC 2007
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > My bad - its what I get for skimming the DSA. I'll go stand in the
> > > corner now... Out of curiosity, what is the delay in pushing out
> > > security updates for select archs? Is it lack of machines or people?
> > > If it is the former, I can most likely make one of our mips boxes
> > > available - if it is the latter, I'd be happy to help.
> > mips and mipsel haven't been configured for the new security queues;
> > it's DSA's plan to move them to faster machines until that occurs.
> > So it's more a lack of man power. However, if your proposed machine
> > is a fast one, please write to hardware-donations at debian.org and
> > CC: debian-admin at lists.debian.org anyway.
> > m68k is bitten by a dak bug, the removal of m68k from etch has
> > resulted in dak not accepting m68k for sarge also.
> > arm was delayed because toffee, the arm buildd is painfully slow
> > and also building unstable, which slows down things a lot.
> Uhm, don't the security queues always take precedence over unstable? If so,
> "also building unstable" shouldn't interfere with the security builds. If
> the priorities of the build queues are wrong, that's a bug that should be
Apparently not, toffee has been repeatedly been blocked by long
builds like linux-2.6 or gcc-snapshot in the past. Ccing Steve;
he should know best as the buildd admin.
> > It's planned to move this to a faster machine for some time.
> Huh? Who has a faster machine than toffee?
I don't know who, but I was previously told a faster machine than toffee
was being offered to arm porters. Again, Steve; can you clarify?
More information about the pkg-php-maint