Anthony Towns a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:16PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:13:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >>> -vote dropped >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:06:01PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: >>>> i think someone running more than one autobuilder for more than _two_ >>>> years now (okay, not for the officical archive, but i see that as >>>> nonrelevant here) demonstrats very good that he mets your mentioned >>>> technical constraints. >>> AIUI, Aurelian doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm >>> buildd. While http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=25 is a good demonstration >>> of some things, I don't think it's the level of buildd we want for our >>> release architectures. >> Wow, was there a point to your post or was pure insult? > > What's insulting in that (apart from the misspelling of Aurelien)? > > From http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33: > > Yes I agree that real machines would be better, but I dont have a > stack of fast ARM machines at home.
First of all I haven't asked to become arm build daemon maintainer. What I asked for a responsive arm buildd maintainer who handle mails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The goal of the emulated arm buildd farm was to be able to handle the requests by myself, in fully automated way (building and uploading package by hand takes a lot of time). I also asked some news about the arm machine offered by Bill Gatliff. This machine is really fast compared to the current build daemons and replace a few of the current one. As described by Steve Langasek on -vote, this can reduce some problems and the load of the build daemon maintainer. > so, afaict, he doesn't have the capability to run a non-emulated arm > buildd. And hacking together a buildd quickly and easily is impressive > and useful for new ports, but it's more important for buildds for release > architectures to be well-connected and reliable over a long period. We > probably could change that expectation and have buildds be put together > by DDs from whatever they have lying around and hosting them at home; > I don't think it'd be a good idea, but others mileage may vary. I fully agree that knowing how to install wanna-build + buildd + sbuild don't make you a buildd maintainer. FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons, two for kfreebsd-i386 (yes, contrary to some official architectures we have buildd redundancy), and one for kfreebsd-amd64. And that for almost 2 years. I have learned a lot from that, experienced hardware problems, chroot breakages due too buggy maintainer scripts, and even toolchain problems. The kfreebsd-amd64 build daemon has been added very early in the development of this architecture (ie two or three weeks after the toolchain has been ported), and I think I have learned more from that than if it has been an official and fully mature architecture. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
