Re: PowerPC buildd is looking for a new home
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:31:22AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The DSA team does not add random machines. There is no ppc64 port,
> > > there is no need for ppc64 machines, there are powerpc build daemons
> > > and there's a powerpc porter machine which is not overloaded. Thus,
> > > no need for more machines, thus no more machines will be added.
> >
> > I had intentions to work on the powerpc64 port, either in multiarch or
> > biarch way, and i told you this back then. Naturally, this got all lost
> > in the witch hunt against me which started in early 2006. It remains
> > that witout a powerpc64 buildd, no powerpc64 port is possible.
>
> That's all fine and dandy, but for your personal pet project you don't
> need machines sponsored to the Debian project, maintained by the
> Debian project and stuff. As you said, you own a G5 your own, so you
> can work on it.
Sure, i do, but i didn't do back then. Furthermore, the augsbourg
machines are powerful, have loadd of memory and disk space, and very
good free connectivity (i pay for the connectivity of my own G5 myself).
> As long as there's no perspective for powerpc64 to be included in the
> archive, there is no need for a buildd running on .debian.org hardware
> maintained by debian.org.
>
> If it's your pet project, feel free to work on it, maintain as many
> machines as you like, talk to sponsors and bandwidth donators as you
> like. This is not the business of the Debian project.
Well, multiarch is seen by many as an important topic, and back then we
all hoped it would be among the etch release goals.
But basically, you are telling me that i should take my server, and fork
debian. Well, i guess given how i have been handled lately, i am
seriously considering this. The debian infrastructure guys probably need
some serious competition in order to be kept agile :)
> > > See the debian-release list from last year when I asked about
> > > the need for these machines (or was it 2005?)
> >
> > And if i remember well, i replied to it. maybe not on debian-release,
> > not sure, but i remember perfectly two occasions where i mentioned that,
> > once was when i contacted DSA originally, and you replied quite angrily
> > a "do you not think we have enough work to do without adding another
> > needless buildd" (from memory, paraphrased, and probably a bit
> > exagerated, so don't go balistic for it), and a second time when i
> > replied to some some list post which may or not have been the one you
> > speak about. I even volunteered to join DSA if it was needed with the
> > express purpose to manage that machine, so it would not cause extra
> > load.
>
> See the "needless buildd" tag above? This still stands. We're not
> adding random machines just for the fun of it. If you want to do
> that, start your own machinepark.org project.
Ok, where is the debian powerpc64 machine, which is needed for the
multiarch powerpc port ?
> > Notice that the augsbourg machines are a complicated thingy, where
> > martin michlmair, then DD, did some negotiations with IBM without even
> > consulting the debian powerpc porters, and they ended up thinking they
> > donated those three augsbourg quad power5 to debian, while in fact they
> > did go to the augsbourg univrsity and we only discovered ways later
> > about it, together with probably the gnomicus or whoever that was
> > involvement in the matter, which was the context in which my demand on
> > the DSA team about those machines happened.
>
> So?
So, the DPL begged machines of IBM, IBM gave the machine, we don't use
them, were not even aware of them for some time (i learned about them
when i was asking for hardware, and IBM said 'but we already donated so
many machines to debian'), this shots our credibility.
As said, i personally volunteered to all the work for the machines to
handle the machine, which at that time, as lead debian powerpc porter, i
didn't consider as 'needless'.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: