Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 06:11:04PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting"):
> >...
> > On the point at issue, do these packages build in a cheap single-vcpu
> > vm from some kind of cloud vm service ? ISTM that this is a much
> > better argument than the one you made, if the premise is true.
> >...
> > - An environment with only one cpu available is supported.
> >...
>
> - An environment with at least 16 GB RAM is supported.
>
> Not sure about the exact number, but since many packages have
> workarounds for gcc or ld running into the 4 GB address space
> limit on i386 it is clear that several packages wouldn't build
> in an amd64 vm with only 8 GB RAM.
I may be missing something, but I'm not totally sure how that follows.
For what limited amount it's worth, the build VMs used on the Launchpad
build farm to build Ubuntu uniformly have (IIRC) 8GB RAM, 4GB swap, and
60GB disk, and this largely seems to be fine. (We could in principle
raise any of these limits, but to keep build dispatch logic simple we
strongly prefer all the VMs to be uniform, and so more per-builder
resources may mean running fewer builders. At the moment this trade-off
point seems to be working well enough.)
> - An environment with at least 75 GB free diskspace is supported.
>
> We do have at least one package in the archive that contains some
> hacks for staying inside the 75 GB diskspace available on the amd64
> buildds, and couldn't be built in a vm with even less diskspace.
Out of interest, which package is that?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: