On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:30:27AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:32:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > The impression I got during the brief from the arm porters is that it is > > so far unclear how well Debian will run on this nice shiney thing. > > So for now it's just a test box/early porting box, and the policies and > > procedures that come with DSAing a machine would be more a hindrance > > than an asset during that stage. > That's fair, though I think the explicit goal should be to get it > supported by Debian *so that* it can be used as a buildd.
I agree. Given that highbank is well supported mainline it and debian being popular at server front, this platform should be a good fit for debian. > Yes, understood; and I propose that "buildd" is the best use for it in the > long term. I think so too, using server hardware for buildd's as opposed to developer boards for mobile usage sounds like a major win in the robustness front. My main concern is that having a single node as buildd without another for development purposes means that we don't have easy means to keep testing for example kernel upgrades. Riku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130430065651.ga29...@afflict.kos.to
