[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Emulated buildds (for SCC architectures)?



On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:58:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Gunnar,
> 
> I quite agree with Anthony that if we have to emulate the machine, there's
> not much sense in supporting it.

I disagree: porters should be free to use whatever tools they want to
do the job. What is important is whether the job is done in a way
that give satisfaction to the release team. All the rest is irrelevant.

Secondly, Debian is a binary distribution: this means users are not
requested to compile anything, so the time it take to compile it is not
a criterion of usefulness. In fact, it is the other way round: slower
compilation make binary packages more useful (Gentoo proving that we can
live without binary packages on the fastest plateforms).

> I do know, from first-hand experience trying to get ssh running on a Cobalt,
> that compilation speed is not always correlated with the usefulness of a
> system; so I'm not completely opposed to using distcc (in moderation!) for
> release architectures, but I would still first like to see some serious
> discussion about why it's useful to build all the software we do for all the
> architectures before agreeing that such a distcc network is warranted.

Our current infrastructure does not provide easy ways to restrict the set
of architecture a package should be provided in testing, so we tend to
have almost every packages for all archs.

If it is deemed necessary, a command for the release manager saying
"remove package 'bar' and all its reverse dependency but only for the
architecture foo" could be implemented.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.



Reply to: