Re: Alternative: Source-Centric Approach [w/code]
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:45PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > The speed of buildd systems mostly becomes irrelevant. They will
> > still have to keep up with base (the set of .debs that we do
> > distribute for a SO arch). Anything past that is there just for QA
> > purposes -- to make sure packages are buildable on these archs, and
> > would be optional.
> This is the problem. How do you make sure that the package is buildable
> on the architecture without building it? And if you have built it why not
> just add it to the archives. :) So you still need a buildd. :(
Not necessarily. I think if we make it easy for end users to perform
selective builds we have a chance of making it work.
> > So, what do you think? Could this work?
> Nice idea, but I do not really see the benefit, more than on ftp disk space
> and security update speed.
While I would like to *not* see a change to the build structure, I
agree that removing lesser used arch's from the testing & guaranteed
support infrastructure gives room for higher frequency releases.
IMHO, the disk space issue is a red herring. Security updates, too,
are not the primary concern, it's getting all of the cats out the door
with some frequency.