Spending Debian money for porter boxes [Was: The archive now supports xz compression]
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:19:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/08/11 at 19:52 +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On 2011-08-11, Adam Borowski <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >> Think of both user systems and the Debian buildds which will waste more
> > >> time - an especially bad problem on slower architectures.
> > > The gain is especially meaningful for slower architectures, as they tend to
> > > have less disk space and slower network links (arm tends to be used in
> > > phones). No extra memory is needed -- decompression is not done in parallel
> > > with memory-hungry stages of dpkg's work. The decompression, merely 2.5
> > > times slower than with gzip, is a tiny fraction of what dpkg takes.
> > It takes a lot longer to compress on slower architectures (i.e. on the
> > buildds), though. You could've built a whole package in that time. (Resorting
> > to your style of argument.)
> Wouldn't it be better to get more buildds for those archs, then?
> That would be a totally appropriate use of Debian money...
Speaking of which. It would also totally be an appropriate use of Debian
money to get new porter boxes that fit the buildds. Most of the non x86
porter boxes are pathetically slow, which is even sadder when you know
the buildd boxes for the same architectures are an order of magnitude
faster (and I'm almost not exagerating).