On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:46:55PM -0800, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> In the latest upload of stalin (a new version), I removed arm and m68k
> from the architecture list. However, I wanted to double-check and
> make sure that was appropriate.
>
> I believe compiling stalin with gcc now requires a bi
> > How do you get the peak VM usage data, then? That's been baffling me
> > since some time. Anyway, I'll give it a try one way or other.
>
> I didn't do anything very precise. I just watched the build (via top,
> htop, or proc -- I forget), and it looked like the virtual memory
> footprint went
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Depending on the access pattern, a ratio of 2:1 swap to ram would be
>> > painful. The only machine where I could try that right away only has
>> > 256 MB RAM... and it's building gcc-snapshot right now.
>>
>> I don't really know how much RAM might
> > Depending on the access pattern, a ratio of 2:1 swap to ram would be
> > painful. The only machine where I could try that right away only has
> > 256 MB RAM... and it's building gcc-snapshot right now.
>
> I don't really know how much RAM might be required for a reasonable
> gcc build time. I
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depending on the access pattern, a ratio of 2:1 swap to ram would be
> painful. The only machine where I could try that right away only has
> 256 MB RAM... and it's building gcc-snapshot right now.
I don't really know how much RAM might be required fo
> Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The 'hedges' machine waiting for DSA attention has 512MB. Arms with
> > 1GB are now possible but rare. Debian will probably get one
> > eventually but no immediate prospect of that.
>
> Just having enough swap might be sufficient. I suppose that depends
>
Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 'hedges' machine waiting for DSA attention has 512MB. Arms with
> 1GB are now possible but rare. Debian will probably get one
> eventually but no immediate prospect of that.
Just having enough swap might be sufficient. I suppose that depends
on how long t
> > However, if the buildd admins are willing to make sure that the
> > buildds have perhaps 1.5GB total (swap included) and are willing to
> > let the build run long enough to finish, then it should be possible to
> > restore m68k and arm support.
>
> It could be possible to build the package unde
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:46:55PM -0800, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> In the latest upload of stalin (a new version), I removed arm and m68k
> from the architecture list. However, I wanted to double-check and
> make sure that was appropriate.
>
> I believe compiling stalin with gcc now requires a bi
On 2006-12-05 09:26 +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > I believe compiling stalin with gcc now requires a bit over 1GB.
> > i.e. gcc's VSS grows to a bit over 1GB. Ignoring any other concerns,
> > it didn't look like the arm and m68k buildds would be likely to handle
> > that very well.
> >
> > How
> I believe compiling stalin with gcc now requires a bit over 1GB.
> i.e. gcc's VSS grows to a bit over 1GB. Ignoring any other concerns,
> it didn't look like the arm and m68k buildds would be likely to handle
> that very well.
>
> However, if the buildd admins are willing to make sure that the
>
In the latest upload of stalin (a new version), I removed arm and m68k
from the architecture list. However, I wanted to double-check and
make sure that was appropriate.
I believe compiling stalin with gcc now requires a bit over 1GB.
i.e. gcc's VSS grows to a bit over 1GB. Ignoring any other co
12 matches
Mail list logo
