Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!
On Monday 14 March 2005 15:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > * Hamish Moffatt (email@example.com) [050314 01:45]:
> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
> >> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
> >> How often should the queue be emptied, or when will an architecture be
> >> declarared not-keeping-up?
> > In light of
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html
> > the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> > at least once per day for etch.
> That means no more m68k. Given that some packages compile up to 12
> days there will be plenty of times the queue doesn't empty once per
Perhaps that was a slight misunderstanding: the Nybbles only require "the
release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number required to
keep up with the volume of uploaded packages" with N <= 2.
The part about emptying once per day was only added by Andreas.
Considering the effects of a twelve-day build of something big like KDE, GNOME
or X: delays in security updates, shlib-deps, build-depends and testing
migration, I can see the roots of the requirements on buildds.
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15