On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:22:57AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 04:35:30PM -0800, Andrew Pollock wrote: > > > I note that one of the issues with the Sparc port is the the lack of a > > developer accessible machine. > > At present, vore.debian.org is back on line; the underlying issue, though, > seems to be that vore, like the buildds, won't necessarily *stay* on-line > due to some hard-to-pin kernel bugs that keep taking the systems down. > > Anyway, I'm working with Stephen Frost (though "working" is a bit of an > overstatement, he's currently waiting on me) to arrange hosting of a porter > system with his employer; the space is all arranged, now it's just a matter > of acquiring appropriate hardware. > > > I have at my disposal, an Ultra 5. Nothing fantastic, I know, but I'm sure > > m68k's had less grunty boxes... It has a healthy amount of RAM, and I would > > put a new hard drive in it (or would accept a hard drive purchased by SPI or > > something). > > I think an Ultra 5 is probably a little light for our purposes: m68k's > porter machine may be slower, but m68k also doesn't have, say, an > openoffice.org port that might need debugging... Also, given the problems > that consumer-grade DSL poses for system accessibility over the long term, > I'd think that vore is still a better bet currently in spite of some past > connectivity problems there, both connectivity-wise and bogomips-wise. > Would you be willing to ship the system to Stephen if the search for better > hardware pans out and vore proves unreliable in the long term? >
I'd prefer not to relinquish posession of the box. Could it be added to the pool of developer accessible machines anyway (with the more-the-merrier reasoning), or is it considered insufficiently grunty bogo-mips-wise? regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
