Re: .d.o machines which are down (Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)
I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
The guidelines should not say something like "needs two buildds minimum",
but instead, "needs to remain within 2 days of package building times",
and set repercussions based on stability of build times and turnaround,
rather than number of buildds.
Case in point, mips and arm cannot even cope with only 2 buildds. It isn't
enough. However archs like x86-64, sparc, etc. can keep up with just one,
or two. So the number of buildds isn't what is important. The problem with
architectures not keeping up isn't a matter of buildd stability so much as
speed. I don't recall any architecures falling behind miserably just
because a buildd went down for an extended period, but I do recall some
(m68k) having problems simply because of lack of processing power.
The guidelines are aimed at the wrong thing is my point.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:23:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
> > always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
> > Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
> > why is everyone complaining now that I want to put a better single machine
> > in place?
> Nobody is complaining; we are just explaining what the implementation
> of the new guidelines would imply for sparc. As I read them, the new
> guidelines are designed to give us better reliability for release
> archs than we have had in the past.
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/