Re: Proposal to replace/extend current armhf builders
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:50:33PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
>
>One thing I'd like to avoid is growing the diversity of buildd's we
>have. If we have many different buildd hardware, each of buildd
>classes needs different kind of maintainence. So when add a new type
>of hw for buildd's, it should go in tandem of getting rid of another
>type of hw.
>
>So if we go with nitrogenx 2GB, are we ready to get rid of locos?
Possibly, if we're happy that they're stable and supportable.
>> > Is debian kernel an absolute requirement, or are we prepared to risk a
>> > custom kernel if we think it'll only be for 6 months?
>
>> If DSA absolutely requires kernel support then I don't think there is
>> much we can do. And I don't think that's a promise anyone could actually
>> make, that we expect mainline support to be fixed in the next 6 months.
>
>It's not just DSA, it is also in our porters best interests. We don't
>want to end up in the situtation where glibc/udev/systemd/ruby needs
>features from a new kernel version, while we are stuck in a old kernel.
Absolutely. We had these issues with the locos fairly soon after we
started, and I was worried whether or not we'd get sufficient upstream
kernel support to keep them usable.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
Reply to: