Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 09:16:53AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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.
That's 12 GB RAM+swap, and since this works in practice I was too high
with guessing 16 GB.
>...
> > - 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?
insighttoolkit4
The Ubuntu patch sacrifices debug info for building on lower-end buildds.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: