Re: armel qualification for Wheezy
Hi
As everyone keeps claiming there is no armel buildd location redundancy,
I don't have much motivation to keep ancina running. It's ignored anyway.
Cheers
Luk
On 05/19/2012 10:28 AM, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:00:18AM +0100, Adam Barratt wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 00:59 +0100, peter green wrote:
>>>> The statement that all but one armel buildd is at the same location disagrees with
>>>> the debian machines database.
>>> [...]
>>>> Metropolitan Area Network Darmstadt : arcadelt
>>>> DG-i: argento
>>>
>>> They may still be physically located there, but:
>>>
>>> wanna-build=> select username, max(last_seen) as last_seen from
>>> armel.users group by username having username like '%arcadelt' or
>>> username like '%argento' order by 2;
>>> username | last_seen
>>> -----------------------+----------------------------
>>> buildd_armel-arcadelt | 2011-04-17 21:14:11.291825
>>> buildd_armel-argento | 2011-10-23 00:12:31.850723
>>> (2 rows)
>>>
>>> iirc they're only still hosted in case e.g. the ARM hosting falls over
>>> for a prolonged period, but I'm happy to be corrected on that.
>>
>> AFAIK it's something like that, yes. Again, we're expecting to add
>> more v7 machines to the cluster in York soon-ish to help with this.
>
> We (DSA) have been told by the buildd people to kill argento and
> arcadelt. We just haven't gotten around to doing it yet. So
> effectively armel does not have buildd location redundancy.
>
>
> cf. RT#3490, RT#3694, RT#3699.
>
> Cheers,
Reply to: