Re: [buildd] Stuff
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:26:41PM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> 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?
It does not work for fortran (unless you use f2c) but fortran is an
order of magnitude faster to compile than C++.
> > 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.
Exactly: we were able to build every packages anyway. But we needed to
do more: showing we have potential for being faster, even if it did not
make a real difference at this point. That is why I said 'merely
symbolical'.
> 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.
In my opinion, we have even less change to be released with Lenny than
with Etch. Releasing Etch will certainly get us point toward releasing
Lenny, especially if we show we are able to build security.d.o without
slowing down the advisories.
> At the moment we don't even have a list of how etch-m68k
> differs from etch and etch-security.
This is my attempt with quinn-diff:
Between etch and etch-m68k:
<http://people.debian.org/~ballombe/m68k/diff-etch-m68k>
Between etch and security.d.o: 40 source packages.
The list of package marked out-of-date:
x11/libx11_2:1.0.3-7.dsc
devel/mozart_1.3.2.20060615+dfsg-2.dsc
devel/klic_3.003-gm1-2.1.dsc
devel/haskelldb_0.9.cvs.601-13.dsc
python/python2.4_2.4.4-3.dsc
utils/fcitx_1:3.4.3-1.dsc
graphics/blender_2.42a-7.dsc
libs/kdelibs_4:3.5.5a.dfsg.1-8.dsc
libs/db4.2_4.2.52+dfsg-2.dsc
devel/mozart-gtk_20060615-2.dsc
graphics/ctn_3.0.6-10.dsc
admin/brltty_3.7.2-7.1.dsc
devel/libsigsegv_2.4-1.dsc
net/ejabberd_1.1.2-6.dsc
interpreters/sigscheme_0.6.1-1.dsc
devel/systemtap_0.0.20061028-2.dsc
math/octave2.9-forge_2006.07.09+dfsg1-8.dsc
interpreters/erlang_1:11.b.2-4.dsc
interpreters/gnu-smalltalk_2.1.8-2.1.dsc
web/yaws_1.65-4.dsc
By the way, if I build them, can I upload them ? How ?
Can we remove packages that should be 'not for us' ?
(I have an account on ries if it may help)
Cheers,
Bill.
Reply to: