On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:40:00AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >> > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:24:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > >> >> - traditionally weak with keeping up, but currently in good shape > >> > I don't agree that http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png > >> > shows it "in good shape". We can expect the build load to get worse, not > >> > better, with a push for the release... > >> Those stats are and have been off for a long time. For example there > >> are 60 packages in state Not-For-Us. That lowers the build percentage > >> for m68k by nearly one percent alone. > > Ah, given that one of the m68k porters has commit access to P-a-s, could > > someone please sort through these N-F-U packages and get them into P-a-s > > as appropriate so that we can have good data for this architecture instead > > of having to look at other graphs? > Is this some kind of mechanism to mark packages as not suitable for an arch? It's a mechanism to mark that packages should not be *built* on an arch. > If m68k should become a release arch again, it should definitely include major > GUI packages like mozilla etc. in there. For the latest round of Mozilla > security builds the m68k build arrived nearly a day after the second-slowest > arch. The same goes for KDE and the like. Noone's going to run Mozilla on m68k > anyway. That's a discussion that belongs on -devel. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature