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

Re: armel qualification for Wheezy

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:00:53AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> ancina is a developer's board, so what components should be in the
> shipping if we go that route?

The board, memory at least, hard drive would be great as it would save
the pain of reinstall. The rest (PSU, cables) I think Steve and Mark can
source if you have other uses for the ones currently in ancina.

> How long would it take to have better machines than ancina so it could
> just get fased out btw?

Sigh, I year ago when armhf buildd's were being chosen, I was expecting
to see significantly faster HW available by now. But things like ARM
servers seem always to be at least half year in future...

If we really want to replace ancina quickly, we could get some i.mx53
quick start boards like the ones currently used as armhf buildd's. I'd
like not to introduce new hardware models as buildd's unless they are
significantly faster as the old ones.

> On another note, the only reason ancina cannot get OOB access is because
> it's not rack mountable. We can easily provide OOB access for rack
> mountable things and probably could even provide more rackspace for
> Debian things (have to get that confimed though if it's something worth
> considering?).

I think ancina should fit in a rack case just fine - Just can't be attached
to standard ATX screw locations. I believe the mv78x00 boards like
ancina at ARM are installed into a rack somehow. Steve knows details I



Reply to: