On 8/23/05, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:14:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > > > > It doesn't really hurt us right now, so we didn't start to force > > > > building packages in pbuilder. buildd time is cheap compared to > > > > developer time, so introducing mandatory pbuilding would slow down > > > > development quite drastically. > > > > > > I guess this is where Debian and Ubuntu differ. Granted, buildd time is > > > cheaper than developer time, but then we don't have the hardware to > > > rebuild all of our archive in a few days, like you guys do :-) > > > > Sure we do, for certain ports (ie: amd64). Really, this just means it'd > > be better to implement a system along the lines of: > > > > source upload > > fastest/preferred buildd type (i386, amd64, whatever) attempts build > > --> Success > > Other buildds attempt to build > > That would introduce some delay which, though generally probably not
That depends on the implementation I think. For example, if you first build all packages that are already build by another buildd and then the packages that aren't build by another, I don't see a problem. > even noticeable, would become a problem if there's an issue with the > "preferred" buildd (such as things being broken and the maintainer on a > day trip, which isn't all that uncommon)
