On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 03:38:03AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:44:10PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > I guess that the definition of "too slow" here would be that: "such slow > > > that the effort needed to maintain it isn't volunteered". > > > The question of whether a compile lasts 4 days or 40, and whether the > > > resulting binary runs on it is out of scope of the speed decision. > > This is the normal explanation, but I don't think that this definition is > > necessarily useful. No amount of effort can cause the process to take less > > time, and in many cases that is the package maintainer's time, not the > > buildd admin's time. If he needs to wait several days just to find out > > that his package didn't build correctly, to upload a new version and wait > > several days for feedback, this makes his job more difficult. > > So what? > If there is no time pressure on release and the package was/is building > fine, than there is no reason to worry about for the maintainer. > Yes, m68k *is* slower than other archs, but that's no reason to complain. > There are people that care about building the packages and there are people > that actually use these packages. If the source upload has been done on time > to get into the release the maintainer has not to be worried if it takes 4 > or 14 days to compile on a specific arch. The RM will do that for him > instead, right? Yep, there are _3_ people using Debian on m68k ;) at least one of them is probably running lyx, maybe even one of them is running KDE on it. http://popcon.debian.org/ Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature