Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
Anthony Towns a écrit :
> 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.
First of all I haven't asked to become arm build daemon maintainer. What
I asked for a responsive arm buildd maintainer who handle mails sent to
arm@buildd.debian.net.
The goal of the emulated arm buildd farm was to be able to handle the
requests by myself, in fully automated way (building and uploading
package by hand takes a lot of time).
I also asked some news about the arm machine offered by Bill Gatliff.
This machine is really fast compared to the current build daemons and
replace a few of the current one. As described by Steve Langasek on
-vote, this can reduce some problems and the load of the build daemon
maintainer.
> 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.
I fully agree that knowing how to install wanna-build + buildd + sbuild
don't make you a buildd maintainer.
FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386
and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons,
two for kfreebsd-i386 (yes, contrary to some official architectures we
have buildd redundancy), and one for kfreebsd-amd64. And that for almost
2 years.
I have learned a lot from that, experienced hardware problems, chroot
breakages due too buggy maintainer scripts, and even toolchain problems.
The kfreebsd-amd64 build daemon has been added very early in the
development of this architecture (ie two or three weeks after the
toolchain has been ported), and I think I have learned more from that
than if it has been an official and fully mature architecture.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Reply to: