On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:28:13PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Julien BLACHE <jblache@debian.org> [2005-03-15 11:44]: > > - auric: RAID is dead (and auric is basically demilitarized since the > > compromise -- not even running a buildd, although I'm not sure > > about that) > As I understand it, the plan was to convert auric into a buildd but > the RAID needs to be fixed. Ben Collins was looking into this but I > don't know about the status. I've also heard discussions several > months ago about using one of Ben's really fast machines. > This is based on what I've heard at some point and may not be > accurate. I'm CCing Ben so he can comment. > If we do need auric and if we need resources to fix the RAID, Debian > can make funding available. auric had been running a buildd, until its disk went south (fairly recently). We are down to one buildd for sparc now. > > That would resurrect quite a few machines, including an alpha buildd > > (escher). > I'm CCing Thimo Neubauer who is in charge for escher. What I said > above applies to escher as well. Thimo, can you let us know what the > status is and whether it would be good to have escher back? BTW, Noah > Meyerhans at MIT has two fairly large Alpha machines he can bring up, > but so far we've been told they are not needed. escher (21164) is not fast enough to keep up with the demands of unstable on its own; until lully died, it was really only used as a porter machine, and only got pulled in as a stopgap buildd at that point. It would be good and useful to have escher back as a porter machine, but for etch we would need something a bit beefier for the N+1 buildd requirement -- e.g., lully, or one of Noah's machines. If it wasn't clear, the "N+1" means "any one buildd can fail and Debian is still able to keep up". -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature