[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [buildd] Action plan to get buildds getting online again

Hello, I've been monitoring this mailing list for quite some time. Unfortunately, my A4000 is at a state where I need to either put a ton of money in it to replace the pieces i'm missing (a monitor or scan converter mainly). It's a video toaster, but i'm looking to get rid of this machine to someone who can enjoy it or put it to use here.

Are the distributed builds mentioned here reserved for just Amiga-specific equipment? I have a Quadra 610 that I could setup and provide access to for a buildd if needed, provided a working build can be placed on the HD as a starting point. I also have a Quad Core co-located server and a i7 machine that a VM or two can be placed on also (if thats an option).


On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Ingo Jürgensmann <ij@2012.bluespice.org> wrote:
On 2012-11-24 09:29, Michael Schmitz wrote:
I could offer a 060 Falcon but that will be of limited use only. The network
card I got for it in the hope to speed up network operation seems to have
died, so it will be quite slow. The whole buildd system will have to be set
up from scratch.

That's bad news with that NIC. Maybe someone here on the list has a spare part to donate?


Mail outgoing from my home network has broken down again - not sure this is
due to changes by my ISP but this I have to resolve before the machine can
be used as buildd.

So your ISP is blocking port 25?
As I said I could provide a public IP for a IPIP tunnel or such (or even some sort of VPN setup).


I won't be able to handle more than my own buildd and maybe one more.

Maybe we should create a list in the Wiki to note this kind of information... ;)
Can please someone add it below the m68k namespace? I'm still on a ship with limited network access until Monday/Tuesday.


As Thorsten has said - build dependencies are the main problem there. We
need to work our way backwards from what can currently be built. Stuff that
is not a build dependency and not likely to be useful can be flagged
not-for-us. Unbuildable packages (build dependencies missing or
uninstallable) should be flagged as well. Maybe we need a new state similar
to dependency-wait for cases where a build depencency exists but cannot be
installed.

There are some new states within buildd anyway. I discovered them when I tried to fix Buildd.net. Maybe one of these already handles this kind of task?


But that's the long term goal. First we need the toolchain back in
shape. Thorsten made an excellent job in the past and give some
advices on building the tool chain, I'm sure. And I think he has
currently the best overview of what needs to get built next.
I'd listen to Thorsten's advice as well.

To clarify things: with "re-building toolchain" I meant to really re-build the toolchain on real iron, although we already have those packages built. At least libc6, binutils & gcc. I feel a little bit more safe when I know that we run safe on real hardware. :-)


--
Ciao...          //    Fon: 0381-2744150
.     Ingo     \X/     http://blog.windfluechter.net

gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: [🔎] dc162c512a5c3ef86787ca6eae949b9b@muaddib.hro.localnet" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/dc162c512a5c3ef86787ca6eae949b9b@muaddib.hro.localnet


Reply to: