<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kurt Roeckx <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kurt@roeckx.be">kurt@roeckx.be</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:<br>> If I may ask, for what purpose do the buildds have a special list of<br>
> packages above and beyond those in unstable?<br>
<br>
</div>So that in case various packages have to be build in an order,<br>
where the seconds depends on the first being available and so on,<br>
that it doesn't take weeks to get them all build. We would have<br>
to wait at least a dinstall before the next one could be build,<br>
assuming sometimes has the time to sign the package between<br>
dinstalls.<br>
<br>
It basicly just avoids a whole lot of delays.<br></blockquote><div> <br>Unfortunately, it seems also to add quite some delays in the self-compiling case. :-/ Each time a buildd finishes, that buildd's Packages file gets updated due to the completed binary upload and all other buildds go back into the BD-Uninstallable state. (I assume this also means the package loses its place in line on the busy buildd queues)<br>
<br>I wonder if the same rules applied to the unstable package list (don't include the all for a package whose any is not done) could be applied also to the buildd's Packages?<br><br></div></div>