Niels Thykier wrote...
[ topic shift ]
> On a related note: Having some way to declare minimum requirements for
> e.g. disk space and memory (a la "base GB usage + GB usage/core") used
> would be great.
> Especially if it is available in metadata, so wanna-build can see
> whether it makes sense to assign a given package to a given build-node.
This is a charming idea altough I have doubt it will work out: As
usual the information has to be kept up-to-date, so unless it is
collected and verified every now and then automatically, it will
become unsuable pretty soon.
Otherwise, there are more things I could use in such a buildd routing
table: I remember I've seen packages failing to build
* when using eatmydata
* on sbuild using overlayfs
* using a qemu build chroot (Debian doesn't do this, other might)
* with /tmp on tmpfs on some archs
and it was nice I could reconfigure a (private) buildd's behaviour on
a per-package base, especially for those that could not be fixed by a
patch. This would allow me to continue using optimizations for the
packages that are less pick^W demanding about the build environment.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature