Re: Emulated buildds (for SCC architectures)?
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Gunnar Wolf (email@example.com) wrote:
Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal . Now, I
understand that up to now we have had the requirement of the builds
running in the real hardware.
Chances are this wouldn't change for 'official' buildds. While not
speaking on behalf of the ftpmaster team the impression I've gotten from
Anthony at least is that emulated buildds begs the question of the
architecture being useful and aren't exactly likely to be met with open
You're fine to run emulated buildds, or whatever else for non-release
architectures. Do what you like! Go wild! If you screw up, well, that
sucks, but you don't hurt anyone else, and you can always fix it later.
Heck even the "you should never do this, ever, ever, ever" procedure of
"rebuilding everything because of ABI changes a few times" isn't so
implausible in SCC -- since it doesn't affect other architectures trying
to release, or our mirror network. Seriously, if you're even remotely
annoyed with the restrictions placed on ports up until now, SCC is
*made* for you.
But as far as actually *releasing* architectures that aren't usable
enough to run as buildds, well, I just can't see the point. That's an
issue for the *release team* though. I think unstable+snapshots are more
than enough for toy architectures that people are just maintainig for
the fun of it, and while that's not being seriously considered I'm not
really seeing much point worrying about more complicated solutions.
Apparently the feeling wrt distcc is somewhat different and is likely to
be a more generally accepted solution to the slow-at-compiling issue.
I like distcc -- heck I went to high school with the author -- and I
think it's cool. I don't know that it'd be enough to get ports like m68k
working quickly enough to meet the 1 or 2 buildds requirement, and it
doesn't solve the other issues that arise at all. But hey, I wouldn't
have a problem with an m68k+distcc/i386 pairing as a buildd, if all the
other requirements were also being dealt with properly. That's also more
a DSA/buildd issue though, neither of which are hats of mine.