Re: open issues with the hppa port
On 2009-08-01, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> * Helge Deller (deller@gmx.de) [090731 23:32]:
>> So, if we have stability problems on the most important machines,
>> which are the debian build servers, then maybe some thoughts should be
>> given to replace those machines by slower but at least stable machines,
>> like e.g. a C3000 ?
>
> We need to have fast and reliable machines. One of the reasons for
> fast is that we want to be able to build an security update for any
> package in a resonable time frame. It is no longer acceptable that we
> need to wait more than 5 days for a single architecture till we can
> upload (we had that with m68k) - I'm not sure how much slower these
> machines are, but for sure hppa isn't the fastest port anyways.
> (Another reason is that we want to keep up with at maximum 2 buildds,
> to reduce admin overhead.)
HPPA porters, do you have numbers how much slower the buildd lafayette
is in comparison to the fastest stable machine mentioned by Helge?
I've just looked up the numbers for the latest Lenny security build
for imagemagick:
amd64: 00:16:14
powerpc: 00:31:54
alpha: 00:32:06
ia64: 00:35:27
hppa: 00:42:05
mips: 01:15:49
hppa: 01:42:26
mipsel: 01:15:17
armel: 05:44:14
arm: 09:17:43
arm has been removed and is only built for -security, but if these
machines are not dramatically slower and if we treat armel as the lower
boundary, there's still a margin where slower, yet reliable hppa kernels
would fit in.
Cheers,
Moritz
Reply to: