Re: saving sparc for etch requalification
Wow, let's just stretch the meaning to burden things even more. "Needs two
buildd's", but wait "two machines isn't enough".
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:40:36AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 12:57:00PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Other than problems with auric, the release team is concerned[1] about
>
> Also, it seems they don't consider vore as enough to have buildd
> redundancy:
>
> 04:47 < vorlon> neuro: using vore as one of two buildds leaves no margin for error anyway, there were times
> toward the end of sarge when it wasn't keeping up with load; so we'd need two other buildds
> besides vore to really qualify
> 04:48 < neuro> vorlon: "one buildd" is not a unit of measure. One auric is enough to keep up by itself
> 04:48 < aj> mips: 10 users, mipsel: 50 users; d-i for both; upstream: yes for both; 1 buildd for both; "in
> progress" buildd redundancy; "ok" 24/7
> 04:48 < vorlon> neuro: and one vore is not; so auric+vore isn't N+1 redundancy
> 04:50 < vorlon> not as it was meant :)
>
>
> --
> .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
> : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
> `. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
> `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com/
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
SwissDisk - http://www.swissdisk.com/
Reply to: