Re: requalification of arm as etch release architecture
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:50:46PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> We have numerous offers of spots. Black networks and Bytemark are both ISPs
> that have offered to host machines (in the UK). Is your machine faster than
> the current kit? This is important, as it seems that (for buildd, as opposed
> to developer access box) fewer fast boxes are strongly favoured by the
> admins/release team over hordes of slower ones.
This would be for developer access, so I gather *that* fast is not
necessary. It's an CATS machine, which is supported in sarge so it
should be easier to maintain.
> I gather that Nokia is interested in providing hardware and admin and
> probably have good connectivity too. Can you coordinate with Jesus Climent
> to make that happen?
In fact that is what I'm doing :) Connectivity may be fast, but their
network policy makes it impossible to provide any such hosting in their
network.
> Cool - I thought you should be on the list. Now you have to go to
> buildd.debian.org and fix some build-failures...
Started ;)
> I'm quite sure we have a lot more than 50, but we do need to actually show
> it. Get the word out... An awful lot aren't running exactly Debian though,
> just something based on debian.
That is an interesting point. what is a debian user? someone who has
a debian derived distro, someone having debian rootfs with custom kernel
and bootloader or only those who have installed debian from official
sarge/woody cd:s to a supported debian subarch?
> We are supposed to look ourselves and pro-actively fix things. But yes, I
> hadn't really appreciated that we had a problem either till recently. So
> henceforth more of us should be keeping an eye on the status and fixing
> issues/helping maintainers fix issues. There is a really good status page
> that I only have the URL for at home...
> Here it is: http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?a=arm
Now That's really nice page! Now if that would allow commenting failures,
it would be perfect ;) I guess a wiki page should work that out.
> In the medium term I expect the difference in speed between arm and faster
> arches to get wider rather than narrower so I think we may need to have arm
> buildds using distcc farming out compiles to faster hardware. It's something
> the armeb guys are playing with at the moment. It adds complexity but should
> keep the build quantum down (if it works reliably).
distcc crosscompiler or scratchbox ;) In either case, the maintaince
burden and security considerations would seem to make them worse choise
than a pile of homogenically configured buildd's, which you can maintain
with a for host in hosts; do ssh $host maintain; done loops ;) Our
restricting factor is not slow cpu's, but lack of manpower.
Reply to: