On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aurélien Jarno wrote: > > Hamish Moffatt a écrit : > > > I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the > > > hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing > > > unstable, especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds. > > > > So the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds is not well choosen. Why > > such a requirement? m68k prooved that having a lot of buildd is not a > > problem, *if they are correctly managed* (which is the case for m68k). > > IANARM, but I outline the possible reasons in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg00866.html > > | Considering the effects of a twelve-day build of something big like KDE, > | GNOME or X: delays in security updates, shlib-deps, build-depends and > | testing migration, I can see the roots of the requirements on buildds. > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of > testing > requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security response > time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 arches but > not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable.
What is the detailed reasoning for this requirement anyway ? And would a ten-way redundant distcc cluster count as one machine ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
