On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:56:38AM +0000, Tim Cutts wrote: > >Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de> writes: > >>Hi Dan, > >>On Monday, 14 Mar 2005, you wrote: > >>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html > >>Alpha will become SCC and will be availible via scc.d.o. > >In fact, there isn't even a reason why it couldn't become a fully > >supported architecture, except that there is only one buildd > >currently. Unfortunately, it is not clear what would need to happen to > >change that. > I have offered to create and host buildd's on this list at least twice > before, and no-one has responded with pointers as to how to go about . > We have a lot of Alpha kit here, and could easily provide at least one, > and possibly more, buildd's of considerable power (possibly even > something as large as an ES40). Especially if it means the difference > between keeping it as a supported architecture and losing it. > What sort of machine is the current buildd? The current live buildd is a DS20E EV68 833MHz with 4GB RAM (disk unknown). The failed buildd is a Dual Alpha EV6 666MHz with 512MB RAM and 33GB of disk. Replacement buildds for alpha should be of comparable or greater specs; escher, which is known to *not* be able to keep up with the unstable package queue, is an SX164 533. > All someone needs to do is point me at the right people to co-ordinate > with, and a set of instructions. Currently, there is no set of public instructions/requirements for new buildds. Since historically the acceptance rate of new buildd offers is fairly low (often because they're unsuitable for one reason or another AIUI), I don't think there's much sense in sending individual offers to the buildd maintainers until there is some kind of a checklist that people can check against beforehand. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature