On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:32:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 02:49:05PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > > > Thanks, that is a very kind offer and with ARM hat on, we cannot > > > reject the offer, it makes it very interesting as a playground > > > machine. However, let me make some points here: > > > * ARM porters hat: It is very interesting machine, and very useful to > > > start experimenting with it as Debian is seeking for a full Calxeda > > > chassis. > > > * DSA hat: The machine shall not be a debian.org machine, so DSA could > > > export accounts if requested. > > Why in the world not? I'm sure there's no requirement for debian.org > > machines to be hardware owned by Debian. The s390 porter machines/buildds > > certainly aren't; I don't see why this machine would necessarily *not* be a > > d.o machine managed by DSA. > > Of course if it's going to be DSA-administered, I'm sure DSA would want > > exclusive admin rights on the machine; but that's just common sense, and > > AIUI not excluded by the offer. > The impression I got during the brief from the arm porters is that it is > so far unclear how well Debian will run on this nice shiney thing. > So for now it's just a test box/early porting box, and the policies and > procedures that come with DSAing a machine would be more a hindrance > than an asset during that stage. That's fair, though I think the explicit goal should be to get it supported by Debian *so that* it can be used as a buildd. FWIW, Ubuntu 13.04 ships with support for Highbank using (AIUI) an unmodified upstream kernel. So while there may be some porting work to be done before Debian runs out of the box on it, there's prior art and I don't imagine the porting work required will be huge. > Also, if it were a d.o system, it would be /either/ a porterbox /or/ a > buildd, not both. Yes, understood; and I propose that "buildd" is the best use for it in the long term. > Whereas, as long as it's a test/play system run by the porters presumably, > they can stress test is at needed, maybe run a (non-official?) buildd, > while also providing porter chroots. > Once we have Debian running properly on this kind of HW, I wouldn't mind > taking over the machine. Though, to be really useful, we probably will > try to get more than one instance, one for a porterbox, and two - > ideally in different locations - for autobuilding packages. That would obviously be a pretty awesome end state. But it also obviously depends on the generosity of other donors. In the meantime, I hope we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here, because having even just one of these nodes available is already VERY good for us - provided we don't let it go to waste. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature