   Michael Banck: >IMHO, buildds are important, but keeping them
current is not nearly as >important as you want to believe. It's
not like "OMG, a buildd went >down, stop the presses!!!1!". And
it's not a sport either ("If we've had >three more buildd for
arch foo, we'd be up from 97.3% to at least 98.5%, >but *you*
block the future of mankind")  Actually, the interesting thing
is that it isn't the total percentage that  matters.  It's the
'keystone' packages at the bottom of dependency chains,  the
ones which prevent large numbers of other packages from building
and/or  getting into sarge -- these have a knock-on effect
causing delays far, far  longer than the delay for the package
itself.  Apparently the buildds don't have a system for
realizing automatically that  these need to be expedited.
Worse, apparently the buildd admins don't have a  system for
realizing manually that they need to be expedited.  :-P  Since I
couldn't think of an automated system (I know, I know), I've
been  working on the, uh, manu