Re: armel boxes for Debian
Joey Hess wrote:
If we had an armel buildd that used ccache and had pre-built versions of
all the security sensitive packages in its cache, updates for most
packages could probably be built in a timeframe that compares with other
architectures. Aside from the complexity of setting this up and desire
for KISS, is there any reason not to consider doing this?
I bet the ccache would be volatile enough that you wouldn't be able to
exploit it repeatably. But you could task that maintenance work to the
machine itself, so there's no reason not configure it that way.
I think the reality is that ARM machines just can't compete with the
high-horsepower machines in x86 and PPC worlds. If that makes us
"second-class citizens" to the Security team, there's no point in
I like the idea that Security patches come out as quickly as they can,
without being gated by the performance of a slow architecture. Compared
to x86, ARM isn't a very inviting exploit target so if we're 12 hours
behind them, I really don't see the problem.
Far better that we tune for consistency configuration-wise with the rest
of Debian, methinks, and just accept that our CPUs are slower. Over
time, the performance gap may close without us doing anything special,
but if we produce a headache-inducing setup in an attempt to improve
performance in the near-term, then we have to go through more work to
undo that setup later when we get faster chips. I don't like to do work
Just my (non-DD) opinion...
BTW, I've got my n4100 running armel now, and even with 512MB the
performance is ... underwhelming. And by ARM standards, this machine is