Hi Gunnar, On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really > checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as > Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although probably not > currently as reliable as those two). > Now, if we face dropping one or more of our architectures (i.e. m68k) > because new hardware can not be found anymore (the Vancouver proposal > mentions that "the release architecture must be publicly available to > buy new" in order to keep it as a fully supported architecture - I > know, SCC != fully supported, but anyway, a buildd can die and create > huge problems to a port), why shouldn't we start accepting buildds > running under emulated machines? I quite agree with Anthony that if we have to emulate the machine, there's not much sense in supporting it. I do know, from first-hand experience trying to get ssh running on a Cobalt, that compilation speed is not always correlated with the usefulness of a system; so I'm not completely opposed to using distcc (in moderation!) for release architectures, but I would still first like to see some serious discussion about why it's useful to build all the software we do for all the architectures before agreeing that such a distcc network is warranted. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
