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

Re: Developer accessible SPARC machine

On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:22:57AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 04:35:30PM -0800, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > I note that one of the issues with the Sparc port is the the lack of a
> > developer accessible machine.
> At present, vore.debian.org is back on line; the underlying issue, though,
> seems to be that vore, like the buildds, won't necessarily *stay* on-line
> due to some hard-to-pin kernel bugs that keep taking the systems down.
> Anyway, I'm working with Stephen Frost (though "working" is a bit of an
> overstatement, he's currently waiting on me) to arrange hosting of a porter
> system with his employer; the space is all arranged, now it's just a matter
> of acquiring appropriate hardware.
> > I have at my disposal, an Ultra 5. Nothing fantastic, I know, but I'm sure
> > m68k's had less grunty boxes... It has a healthy amount of RAM, and I would
> > put a new hard drive in it (or would accept a hard drive purchased by SPI or
> > something).
> I think an Ultra 5 is probably a little light for our purposes:  m68k's
> porter machine may be slower, but m68k also doesn't have, say, an
> openoffice.org port that might need debugging...  Also, given the problems
> that consumer-grade DSL poses for system accessibility over the long term,
> I'd think that vore is still a better bet currently in spite of some past
> connectivity problems there, both connectivity-wise and bogomips-wise.
> Would you be willing to ship the system to Stephen if the search for better
> hardware pans out and vore proves unreliable in the long term?

I'd prefer not to relinquish posession of the box. Could it be added to the
pool of developer accessible machines anyway (with the more-the-merrier
reasoning), or is it considered insufficiently grunty bogo-mips-wise?



Reply to: