Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an
> > > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines.
> > Why?
> Having two developers-accessible port machines for a platform means
> more total CPU time (important for the slower ports) and
> that we still have one usable when the other is down.
Why would we need "more total CPU time"? Not even leisner is
overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
(leisner has a different problem, though).
Assuming that the port machines run stable, and if they don't they or
the port loses some of their usability, there is no need to maintain
more than one development machine for a particular port.
Downtimes from 1-3 days are no problem for developers-accessible port
machines usually. That's different to buildds, but we're not talking
about them at the moment.
Hence, please explain why we need "more total CPU time" and when a
downtime from a couple of days maximum is a problem.
> (db.debian.org do not list gluck as having chroot, and list vore as
> a sparc port machine. However vore seems to be down currently.
> pergolesi has both amd64 chroot and i386 chroot.)
Hmm, vore should be up. Should be up soon again.
> Only i386 and powerpc have two port machines.
Seeing it this way, it may be worth considering to remove the chroots
on gluck as the machine already deals with enough load.
> Also Joey, this was not intended as a critic of the work of the DSA
My questions were also not intended as counter-critic, but only as a
request for clarification.
> But my reasoning is that we could add more machine without increasing
> the load on the DSA team.
My question stays: Why?
Of course, we could add all machines that get donated to the Debian
project, but why should we?
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.