* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: > >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. Alright, perhaps I misunderstood the responsibilities a bit. buildds are run by DSA (Which I'm guessing is the 'System Administration' group on w.d.o/intro/organization)? Is access to wanna-build also managed by that group? That's mainly what I was driving at really- will an emulated/distcc buildd be allowed to access wanna-build & co. and be acceptable to meet the release criteria? I thought the general feeling was 'emulated - no, distcc - perhaps' but now I've got no idea since it seems the appropriate people havn't commented. Speaking of which, if DSA are the appropriate people, who in that group are active in that role, esp. wrt the buildds? That group has 5 people but I only know of two (James Troup & Ryan Murray) who have been active wrt buildds. I'm still a bit confused though since I really thought the buildds fell more under the perview of ftpmasters for whatever reason... Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature