Le Lun 22 Août 2005 10:29, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver a écrit : > Hi, > > > 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. > > The problem is not requiring a redundant buildd, the problem is > the arbitrary limit on the amount of 'buildd machines' of 2. if one of one buildd is down, or more likely if one piece of network behind the buildd and the rest of the world is down for 1 month, or worse than down : malfunctioning (with some nice tcp connections loss) ... then if such a thing happens during : * the c++ transition (that is a *real* pain for the buildd's) * 2 weeks before a major distro freeze * <any other hell scenario> what can you do ? the answer is wait and pray. *great* No, 2 buildd's machines is a minimum requirement that is *not* arbitrary, it's only wisdom. I'd even had added a word on maximum downtime wrt that limit (I mean, if one of the 2 buildd's is really down for a time, after how many time does the number of buildd's is considered beeing *one* and not two anymore ...) > This is still somewhat arch specific code as it assumes iopl and the > availability of an isa bus. I'm more thinking of packages which > require a lot of RAM to build and run and are thus useless on archs > which generally don't have that much RAM for example. for that part I agree with you. I can't understand that packages like mozilla are built on all arch. most m68k/arm platforms are so slow, that even running a simple encrypted connection eats a lot of CPU ... but well, I suppose the line is hard to draw. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp8lBi6uM8qV.pgp
Description: PGP signature