Re: my thoughts on the Vancouver Prospectus
Bill Allombert <ballombe@master.debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being
>> > raised and answered]
>>
>> > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture
>> > > restricted to 2 or 3?
>> >
>> > - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with
>> > package uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while
>> > slower, low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain
>> > applications, they are a) unlikely to be able to usefully run
>> > much of the software we currently expect our ports to build, and
>> > b) definitely too slow in terms of single-package build times to
>> > avoid inevitably delaying high-priority package fixes for RC
>> > bugs.
>>
>> a) is true for some big packages like GNOME and KDE, but that
>> does not impede the architecture's usefulness for other software
>> we have in the archive.
>
> Also it is an example of ridiculously large source packages, which
> create other problems by themself like the amount of bandwidth wasted
> when one has to apply a one-line fix, in particular for security updates.
>
> Why not considering splitting those source packages? IIRC, this is
> planned for the X11 source packages. This seems a better option overall.
>
GNOME is already comprised of many source packages. I guess KDE is a
bigger problem, as it seems to have less and bigger source packages
and is C++, which is considerably more expensive to compile than C.
Rotty
--
Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
Reply to: