On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:53:46PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > I strongly suggest that the box buildding security update use > distcc+crosscc. This will speed things quite a bit with no > risk of breakage since we are using a stable cross-compiler > that is well tested. > > In my opinion, distcc+crosscc have more potential that aranym, > especially for security in term of speed gain and reliability. It seems to break on objective-c code. Does it work for fortran or any other languages? > I believe that if there had been a concerted attempt to use > distcc+crosscc on some buildd, we would have been able to get > released with Etch. Actually I still believe we can relase m68k > as part of etch 4.0r2 or 4.0r3 if we show a real involvement > even if merely symbolical. The toolchain was the root cause for our etch problems, not our buildd speed. Buildd speed was contributory in that it was easy to point to. At the time we were punted from etch, we had not yet worked out our toolchain problems. Until we resolve our current toolchain problems and get TLS working, we won't be added to lenny. I don't believe we have any chance to be added to etch. At the moment we don't even have a list of how etch-m68k differs from etch and etch-security. Peace, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature