On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:58:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Gunnar, > > I quite agree with Anthony that if we have to emulate the machine, there's > not much sense in supporting it.
I disagree: porters should be free to use whatever tools they want to do the job. What is important is whether the job is done in a way that give satisfaction to the release team. All the rest is irrelevant. Secondly, Debian is a binary distribution: this means users are not requested to compile anything, so the time it take to compile it is not a criterion of usefulness. In fact, it is the other way round: slower compilation make binary packages more useful (Gentoo proving that we can live without binary packages on the fastest plateforms). > 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. Our current infrastructure does not provide easy ways to restrict the set of architecture a package should be provided in testing, so we tend to have almost every packages for all archs. If it is deemed necessary, a command for the release manager saying "remove package 'bar' and all its reverse dependency but only for the architecture foo" could be implemented. 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]
