[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of build-arch coverage

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:58:50PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I hope the above is useful for measuring progress on this front.  Do
> we have any plans for enforcing build-arch for jessie at this point?
> If we haven't already, stronger warnings when running dpkg-buildpackage
> and stronger lintian warnings (errors?) would be useful to add.

I should have added here, if any additional information would be
helpful, I have all the build logs on hand for the moment, and can
obtain any additional information if needed.  And if any additional
testing needs doing, e.g with different dpkg patches, I can repeat
the exercise given a little notice.

The testing was done on an 8-core 4GHz AMD FX-8350 system with 16GiB
RAM and a 200GiB btrfs volume for the build snapshots, with the
Debian archive mirror and build products accessed and stored,
respectively, using NFSv4 with a FreeBSD 10.0 ZFS fileserver.  Each
run took just over 2.5 days, using GNU parallel to drive 8 concurrent
sbuild/schroot builds; a little more optimisation could reduce this
time further.  The system is quite thoroughly burned in now; it made
a nice "cooking electronics" smell for the first hour, and other than
that went smoothly until Btrfs toasted itself with lots of kernel BUGs
when it unbalanced itself to the point of unusability after 5 days
of being thrashed mercilessly, around build 19500; a btrfs filesystem
rebalance made it go again--but something to watch out for if you're
a btrfs user!  (Glad I'm no longer using it except for build
snapshots!  Using a filesystem shouldn't reduce your system to
requiring a hard reset!  At least it was recoverable this time…)


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux    http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   schroot and sbuild  http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
   `-    GPG Public Key      F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: