On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:53:46PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > I strongly suggest that the box buildding security update use > > distcc+crosscc. This will speed things quite a bit with no > > risk of breakage since we are using a stable cross-compiler > > that is well tested. > > In my opinion, distcc+crosscc have more potential that aranym, > > especially for security in term of speed gain and reliability. > > distcc+crosscc is my favorite as well. It's fast, it's cheap (in terms of > CPU overhead) and it's fairly extensible (adding more distcc hosts). > I think aranym is great for DDs and for installation tests, etc... > > > I believe that if there had been a concerted attempt to use > > distcc+crosscc on some buildd, we would have been able to get > > released with Etch. Actually I still believe we can relase m68k > > as part of etch 4.0r2 or 4.0r3 if we show a real involvement > > even if merely symbolical. > > Well, concerted attempt... what do we have and what do we need for some > m68k+distcc+crosscc? What needs to be changed within the buildd chroot?
We essentially need a x86 box on the same LAN than the m68k. A reasonnable x86 can serve several m68k without problems. You need to install in the build chroot distcc and Roman Zippel rosscc, set $build_env_cmnd = "env DISTCC_HOSTS=<IP of cross compiling x86 box>"; in .sbuildrc and you are set. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
