On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:28:00PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Andreas Barth] > > > "machine" translates with partition btw - though the two different > > > partitions should be in different physical locations, for obvious > > > reasons. Yes, we want a redundancy for good reasons. > [p2] > > Which is very arbitrary to me, machine to me means physical box with > > hardware and software doing stuff. So this requirement is very much > > arbitrary and without any reasonable foundation. > I don't think anyone ever said an official buildd cannot be used for > any other purpose. The s390 box is used as a buildd, but is also used > for other things - I don't see the problem. Of course, it's probably a > bad idea to give out random shell access to the buildd's OS instance. > The "reasonable foundation" for having a redundant buildd in a separate > physical location is, I think, well-established. Any random facility > can lose power, perform big router upgrades, burn down, etc. Debian > machines also seem to be prone to bad RAM, bad power supplies, bad disk > arrays, and the like, and these things can't always be fixed within a > tight time window. FWIW, it is not implicit in these requirements that a port must have geographically separated buildds. I don't think it's particularly *wise* to keep them together, though; the first time a port goes completely off-line for a week because the site's redundancy wasn't redundant, we would certainly be scrutinizing the port in question. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature