Colin Tuckley (22/01/2010):
> Your list of buildd machines is seriously out of date if you are
> talking about armel.
You do realize you're answering to a mail dated “08 May 2007”, right?
> --
> Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 293413 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id
> Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 1433
Argh! Ignore that - I was replying to an ancient message by mistake.
Colin
--
Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 293413 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id
Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x1B3045CE
I'm not as dumb as you look.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org
wi
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The problems mainly comes from the build daemons. Only *3 out of 7* are
> building packages, and one of the three is also building stable-security
> from time to time.
Are you talking about the deprecated "arm" arch or the current "armel" arch?
Your list of buildd machine
On 2007-06-03 17:50 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The local admin have been contacted, they are very reactive and they
> have done the kernel upgrade. The problem was to know who to contact.
>
> Now we are waiting for the admin of the ARM build daemons to restart them.
>
> >> The local admin nee
David Fokkema a écrit :
> On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 17:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> David Fokkema a écrit :
>>> On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Lennert Buytenhek a écrit :
> If you never fix machines when they break, having 7 machines is better
> than having
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 17:27 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> David Fokkema a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> Lennert Buytenhek a écrit :
> >>> If you never fix machines when they break, having 7 machines is better
> >>> than having 2 machines, because if you
David Fokkema a écrit :
> On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Lennert Buytenhek a écrit :
>>> If you never fix machines when they break, having 7 machines is better
>>> than having 2 machines, because if you lose 1 out of 2 machines you lose
>>> half of your build capacity,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Lennert Buytenhek a écrit :
> > > If you never fix machines when they break, having 7 machines is better
> > > than having 2 machines, because if you lo
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Lennert Buytenhek a écrit :
> > If you never fix machines when they break, having 7 machines is better
> > than having 2 machines, because if you lose 1 out of 2 machines you lose
> > half of your build capacity, whereas if you lose 1 out o
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> >
> > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
>
Lennert Buytenhek a écrit :
> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:27:04AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>
> - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
>
> I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:27:04AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> > > >
> > > > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > > > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU toda
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> (I also don't think that finding ARM silicon vendors willing to donate
> some man-power to the Debian ARM port would be very hard, either.)
That's always good and helpful for kernel and toolchain work. Having
some of these people "around" and jump in should the need ari
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> >
> > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
>
> How much faster is the fast
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 07:51:49PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > > > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
> > >
> > > How much faster is the fastest available ARM CPU c
On Wed, 09 May 2007, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:53:36PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> > >
> > > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM,
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> > >
> > > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
> >
> > How much faster is the fastest available
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:53:36PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> >
> > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM C
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:53:36PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> >
> > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
>
> How much
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
>
> I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
How much faster is the fastest available ARM CPU compared to toffee
Wookey:
Wookey wrote:
Bill, elmo - what happened after emails in feb? What are we waiting
for now? Can anyone on this list help?
I'm still here, and I think that emails aren't getting eaten anymore.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> Wookey a écrit :
>> On 2007-05-08 12:05 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The ARM port is getting bad [1], the percentage of packages built
>>> staying a bit more than 90% for 2 weeks. Also this is confirmed by a
>>> message on #debian-arm this morning:
>>>
Wookey a écrit :
> On 2007-05-08 12:05 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The ARM port is getting bad [1], the percentage of packages built
>> staying a bit more than 90% for 2 weeks. Also this is confirmed by a
>> message on #debian-arm this morning:
>>
>> 09:30 < doko> please could som
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:05:01PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The ARM port is getting bad [1], the percentage of packages built
> staying a bit more than 90% for 2 weeks.
As to my thoughts about the Debian ARM port: I think there are more
than enough people who care about the ARM port and wan
On 2007-05-08 12:05 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ARM port is getting bad [1], the percentage of packages built
> staying a bit more than 90% for 2 weeks. Also this is confirmed by a
> message on #debian-arm this morning:
>
> 09:30 < doko> please could somebody care about the pyt
Hi all,
The ARM port is getting bad [1], the percentage of packages built
staying a bit more than 90% for 2 weeks. Also this is confirmed by a
message on #debian-arm this morning:
09:30 < doko> please could somebody care about the python2.4, python2.5,
binutils, gcc-4.1 and gcj-4.1 builds for arm
26 matches
Mail list logo
