Re: ARM port(s) BoF at DebConf
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:09:53PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Steve McIntyre <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Both armel and armhf are doing well, covering ~96% of the archive. We
>> don't have any ARM server hardware yet, so we're stuck using
>> development boards as build machines. They work, but they're a PITA
>> for hosting and they're not designed for 24x7 usage like we're doing
>> so they're not that reliable.
> there was a post on the arm-netbook mailing list about a 7W quad-core
>tegra3-based mini ITX motherboard which could take up to 2gb of RAM.
>whether it's the usual
>style of vapourware or actual reality i'd strongly suggest someone
>gets onto them and considers putting together a group buy / bulk order
>just to make it worthwhile their time making a batch, because it's
>literally the first ARM-based machine i've ever heard about that can
>actually take 2gb of RAM.
> oh: also the motherboards have eSATA and uPCI-e, hm let me find the
>post.... here you go:
Cool, sounds interesting maybe... But what's the rest of the system
like? Is it supported already in the kernel, etc.? We really want to
get standard machines where possible.
> btw, steve: it's not the c++ doing linking in swap that's the
>problem, it's trying to do *debug* builds of c++ applications that's
>the problem. webkit for example requires a minimum of 1.4gb of
>resident RAM for the linker phase if you enable debug builds. i have
>mentioned a number of times that it's debug builds that are the
>problem, and that all you have to do is disable debugging (*1) and the
>build will complete within 15 minutes instead of 15 hours, but as
>usual because it's that "fucking moron lkcl telling us what the fuck
>to do" nobody bothers to listen. well, keep on not listening for as
>long as you (plural) find it useful to do so: i'm not the one with a
>PITA for having to wait 18 hours for a debug build of a c++ app to
>complete, am i, eh? *eyebrows-arched*....
That's interesting, but we don't want to be doing non-standard builds
for one architecture. That's not the way we do things in Debian...
>(*1) and if someone _really_ wants a debug build of that particular
>problematic package, on a build and distro port that's still
>experimental, well, surely they can compile it themselves, using their
>own resources, yes?
As Adam pointed out, it's far from experimental at this point. In
terms of popularity, I'm expecting armhf to overtake most of the other
ports once it's been released as stable with Wheezy.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
"I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code
is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth