I know I'm late to the party, but one big win about qemu build servers
is that they can be instantly cloned, replicated, and shared. We can't
do that with real hardware.
--rich
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> A prime example is the "tar" testsuite which is very picky about
> filesystem behaviour.
> - With a real ARM CPU building on local (USB) storage, it passes all tests
> - With a real ARM CPU over NFS the testsuite fails one test (c
On 2006-12-20 19:58 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 12:32:25PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> >
> > Could you try those packages on hedges? (You can get developer access
> > from Wookey if you need it). Hedges has 512MB real and 1.5GB swap. And
> > unlike leisner, the net
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > A prime example is the "tar" testsuite which is very picky about
> > filesystem behaviour.
> > - With a real ARM CPU building on local (USB) storage, it passes all tests
> > - With a real ARM CPU over NFS the testsuite fails one t
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >Pardon me sir, but can that claim that binaries built on so-called
> > "real hardware" will unquestionably run (as opposed to, if I understand
> > correcly, binaries built on an emulated platform) be backed up by any
> > facts, examples, experime
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:27:03PM +, Martin Guy wrote:
> 2006/12/20, Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >We ought to discuss if there
> >is any significant reason not to use qemu 'machines' instead of actual
> >hardware for slower arches.
>
> As Wookey knows, I have been building Debian packages t
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:50:12PM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>
> > For the faster arches, i.e. the ARM9 machines and above, I'm thinking
> > that we should stick with real hardware so there's no question that the
> > binaries will run properly.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:40:06PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Wookey a écrit :
> > On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and
> >> started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, s
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Also those package (and they are plenty others), could be tagged
> not-for-us. This would spare some build daemon time, and would ease to
> see which packages have really failed to build or not.
[...]
>openafs_1.4.2-4
As the OpenAFS co-mainta
Mirco Bauer a écrit :
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> I can give some details about the Mono related packages that failed to
> build before but worked for you. I reply inline.
>
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> * Packages that now build fine:
>>blam_1.8.3-2 (for 40 days)
Oops
Martin Guy a écrit :
> 2006/12/20, Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> We ought to discuss if there
>> is any significant reason not to use qemu 'machines' instead of actual
>> hardware for slower arches.
>
> As Wookey knows, I have been building Debian packages to bootstrap the
> armel port of etch un
Hi Aurelien,
I can give some details about the Mono related packages that failed to
build before but worked for you. I reply inline.
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> * Packages that now build fine:
>blam_1.8.3-2 (for 40 days)
blam failed because of a runtime bug (whi
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:27:03PM +, Martin Guy wrote:
> 2006/12/20, Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >We ought to discuss if there
> >is any significant reason not to use qemu 'machines' instead of actual
> >hardware for slower arches.
>
> As Wookey knows, I have been building Debian packages t
2006/12/20, Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
We ought to discuss if there
is any significant reason not to use qemu 'machines' instead of actual
hardware for slower arches.
As Wookey knows, I have been building Debian packages to bootstrap the
armel port of etch under QEMU for a couple of months now
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 12:32:25PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>
> Could you try those packages on hedges? (You can get developer access
> from Wookey if you need it). Hedges has 512MB real and 1.5GB swap. And
> unlike leisner, the netwinders, or nslu2s, it's expandable if needed.
No use, thi
Bill:
A very basic reason is that some packages require 1GB of RAM to build
in finite time and there are no arm and m68k buildd with that amount of
RAM.
Could you try those packages on hedges? (You can get developer access
from Wookey if you need it). Hedges has 512MB real and 1.5GB swa
Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> * Packages that failed to build because the build daemon netwinder is
> fucked for weeks wrt to /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3.0.6
>cpufire-applet_1.2-2
>gnome-session_2.14.3-4
The situation is actually worse than what I expected. This build daemon
seems to loose fil
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:05:21PM +, Wookey wrote:
> On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and
> > started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, see
> > [1].
>
> Very impressive
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> For the faster arches, i.e. the ARM9 machines and above, I'm thinking
> that we should stick with real hardware so there's no question that the
> binaries will run properly.
Pardon me sir, but can that claim that binaries built on so-called
"real h
Wookey a écrit :
> On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and
>> started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, see
>> [1].
>
> Very impressive piece of work aurelien! We ought to discuss
Wookey a écrit :
> On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and
>> started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, see
>> [1].
>
> Very impressive piece of work aurelien! We ought to discuss
Wookey wrote:
On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Hi,
For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and
started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, see
[1].
Very impressive piece of work aurelien! We ought to discuss if there
i
On 2006-12-20 17:39 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For those who don't know, I have setup 8 emulated ARM build daemons and
> started to upload packages. To know why and for more information, see
> [1].
Very impressive piece of work aurelien! We ought to discuss if there
is any significant
ined until fixed."
16:18:59 aj | and now aurel32 will presumably fly off the handle
16:22:37 aba | aj: I don't think that is a good idea either if the porters do
uploads - i.e. blacklisting is probably better than whitelisting
16:23:14 aba | aj: and please let e.g. people upload to non-fr
i know im probably being a bit of a pain here...
where is it that new packages are uploaded to? a while back i asked about
the mozilla package, and very kindly, i was told it was being recompiled to
work. Having only just got aroung to trying again, i cant find a package
that works. ive looked in
[Not only Overfiend wants to spam, me too Please be careful when
replying to this mail.]
Packages listed below need a recompile for some architectures.
Could these be issued? Since they'll have to go into stable
please ensure that you build them on a stable machine.
Further investigation
---
26 matches
Mail list logo
