Re: Bits from the release team (freeze time line)
* Steve McIntyre (steve@einval.com) [131227 03:17]:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 06:08:03PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >
> >On a related note, DSA have concerns with the current arm* and mips*
> >hardware. While there have been promises of new hardware to replace
> >some of the current buggy machines, the offers are currently not
> >leading to concrete results. Porters of these architectures should
> >contact DSA and figure out a solution to avoid a situation where an
> >architecture is in jeopardy due to insufficient buildd or porter
> >machines.
>
> Ummm, WTH? We've been looking into possible *upgrades* to replace some
> of the armel and armhf buildds with faster and (ideally) more easily
> managed machines, but I *seriously* disagree with any suggestion that
> the current machines are "buggy". I can see that with the some of the
> known-buggy mips* machines, but I don't accept that the arm* machines
> could/should be classified this way.
Sorry, but I *seriously* disagree with this statement. If we apply
common standards (and I think we should), then either arm* and mips*
have hardware issues or none of them.
On all those architectures we speak about build power and the options
to refresh hardware, and looking at buildd.d.o it doesn't look like
mips* does worse by far than arm, but rather the other way.
However, using words like "known-buggy mips* machines" is just FUD
against the mips*-ports, and plainly inacceptable, so please stop
doing that. (For reference, there is no mipsel machine which has
hardware bugs affecting daily operations. There are two mips machines
which are pre-series and are not as stable as I wish, but as builddadm
I was more occupied recently with arm* machines not stable then with
mips machines not stable. This all doesn't mean I think nothing should
be changed, but please do not FUD against mips* (or any other
architecture).)
Andi
Reply to: