Re: armel boxes for Debian
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:44:30PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > We could just declare arm a second-class architecture for security updates,
> > i.e. DSAs being released once all archs are available except arm and arm
> > updates being released once available. For small to medium packages most
> > updates would still be released in sync, since we're not available to
> > release updates 24/7.
> Yeah, that's what I was suggesting.
Ok, if that's an agreeable consensus to arm porters, we should add it to
the Lenny release notes.
> > > I'm also unsure based on Moritz's mail exactly what kind of speed
> > > they're looking for from an arm security buildd. He mentioned something
> > > on the order of 14 hours to build xulrunner -- would an arm box that
> > > builds it in 9 hours be a worthwhile improvement, or will that still
> > > leave the security team waiting until the next day for arm to catch up?
> > 9 instead of 14 would still help. I also think a second security buildd
> > would help: It wouldn't address the spikes of giga packages like xulrunner,
> > but it would help for cases, where several updates are building in
> > parallel.
> The benefits I see from such a speedup are that it would let the arm
> advisory arrive 5 hours faster (but still 7 hours after everything
> else), and that it would increase the number of packages that wouldn't
> need a delayed advisory for arm. Accurate?
Yes, that's correct.