machines (was: Canonical and Debian)
* Stephen Frost (email@example.com) [050608 03:35]:
> > - alpha: one buildd, able to keep up with current package volume; no spare
> > buildd due to the principal candidate being inexplicably unbootable now
> > (oh yeah, btw, the primary failed and was off-line for a day, a week
> > before release); no porter machine available.
> Ok, we need more alpha machines then. If nothing else then at *least*
> one for porters. Let's ask the debian-alpha list or debian-devel if
> someone's got a spare alpha they don't mind parting with. I can
> probably arrange hosting for it, if necessary (one way or another).
We have one machine that is just lacking an ide root disc (hm, I can
remember someone wanted to send a working disk to local admins). Also,
we have at least two offers.
> > - hppa: one buildd, keeps up with package volume, but no backup buildd and
> > gdb seems to kill its kernel (yay); one porter machine.
That gdb-problem is under investigation.
> Well, at least we've got a porter machine, could that be turned into a
> buildd on relatively short notice if necessary? The gdb issue is
> something I certainly hope is being looked into or at least has been
> brought up to the LKML and debian-hppa folks.
Well, my understand was that we first try the kernel that was not killed
by gdb, and also a current kernel, and look at the differences. For
obvious reasons, one wants a local admin to be around for that.
> > - sparc: one buildd which is not consistently able to keep up with the
> > volume of incoming packages; no backup buildd, no additional porter
> > machine.
> Alright, we need more sparc systems, I'm working on getting arrangements
> for hosting at least one, I've got access to a few others as well. It
> sounded like there wasn't an issue getting sparc machines donated, so is
> this just a hosting problem?
Actually, we have at least two sparc offers (which are also hosting
offers). My understanding of the situation is that DSA wants to clarify
the situation with BenC first before deciding on these offers.
> > - s390: one buildd, which consistently cannot build gtk+2.0 because it only
> > has 2GB of space available for builds and gtk+2.0's requirements have
> > recently exceeded this; a second possible buildd is not yet hooked into
> > w-b because of what appear to be administrative details. (two porter
> > machines available, though.)
Also, there is another offer (of which I know for < 24 hours :).