Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3) (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt a écrit :
> > > I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
> > > hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing
> > > unstable, especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
> > So the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds is not well choosen. Why
> > such a requirement? m68k prooved that having a lot of buildd is not a
> > problem, *if they are correctly managed* (which is the case for m68k).
> IANARM, but I outline the possible reasons in
> | 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.
> Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of testing
> requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security response
> time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 arches but
> not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable.
What is the detailed reasoning for this requirement anyway ? And would a
ten-way redundant distcc cluster count as one machine ?