Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?
> arm 11:44:41
> m68k 26:39:13
>
> m68k is an order of a magnitude slower and that's not acceptable.
I do not doubt m68k is a lot slower. We'll need to find a way to more
intelligently schedule packages that require a lot of space or RAM to
build. The Falcon/CT60 could help a lot there, even more so as soon as we
finally get the ethernet cards for them.
> (While arm clearly sucks as well, Steve said that a new, faster arm
> buildd is in the works.)
There's work on using the coldfire boards, which would also be a lot
faster.
> > Well, xfree has been built some days ago but no attempt has been made to
> > get it uploaded yet.
>
> I just signed it. procmail didn't filter it correctly, as the To: was
> different for your manual build.
Your mail didn't seem to go through. I've signed it myself now and it
should upload shortly. mozilla-firefox is currently building as well.
> > This has been complicated by the fact that I've asked for access to
> > the security archive for hobbes but no response of any kind has been
> > forthcoming.
>
> Another buildd for stable-security seems a good idea, but the problem of
> peak times remains.
And that's where both improved scheduling and closer coordination would
help. Meaning I'd appreciate some advance warning if something big comes
down the pipeline, so we can shunt it to the right machine to deal with
it.
Michael
Reply to: