On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > -vote dropped
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_
> > > years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as
> > > nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned
> > > technical constraints.
> >
> > AIUI, Aurelian doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm
> > buildd. While http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=25 is a good demonstration
> > of some things, I don't think it's the level of buildd we want for our
> > release architectures.
> Wow, was there a point to your post or was pure insult?
What's insulting in that (apart from the misspelling of Aurelien)?
From http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33:
Yes I agree that real machines would be better, but I dont have a
stack of fast ARM machines at home.
so, afaict, he doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm
buildd. And hacking together a buildd quickly and easily is impressive
and useful for new ports, but it's more important for buildds for release
architectures to be well-connected and reliable over a long period. We
probably could change that expectation and have buildds be put together
by DDs from whatever they have lying around and hosting them at home;
I don't think it'd be a good idea, but others mileage may vary.
Not every criticism is an insult, and if you want to know why things
don't happen you need to be able to take criticism without taking insult.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature