Re: Autobuilding with cross-compiler to solve m68k woes?
> No, no, no. Cross compiling is NOT the answer. I would rather see
> m68k dropped than having it cross-compiled. Cross-compiling is evil,
> does not work all the time and is quite simply not the answer...
I agree on the 'rather drop m68k than cross compile' point, for a
different reason: If we cannot find enough active m68k maintainers to
either manually build packages or operate buildd systems, we have a
generic support problem anyway, and need to solve that first. So far
getting more people to support m68k has been tough but that appears to
change now.
> Buildd has many faults, but one of it's strengths is that it is
> perfectly scalable out of the box. If an architecture is really too
> slow, you add more boxes. The fact that there is currently only one
> buildd per architecture is pure happenstance and _not_ a limitation of
> buildd (I know because I use to run m68k/buildd#2).
We've had a few people volunteer their m68k machines (all 040) for build
or autobuild systems in the past few days. I'm currently setting up one
such box, Christian tries to get another up, and there's four more in
the pipeline IIRC. You have experience with setting up buildd? I'll bug
you about details if I get stuck :-)
Michael
Reply to: