Re: requalification of arm as etch release architecture
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 12:56:26PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 12:45:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > This is also a useful overview:
> > http://spohr.debian.org/~ajt/etch_arch_qualify.html, showing that arm is
> > problimatic in the areas of:
> > - Not currently having a developer accessible machine;
>
> This needs to be obviously fixed. I have a machine that can be probably
> relocated for this purpose, I just need to find a spot to host it. This
> has been on my mind for a while, it just has been unclear what are the
> requirements for hosting such a machine.
IIRC from back when crest was set up:
* DSA must maintain it.
* Must have decent network connectivity.
* Must have a local admin that's rather responsive.
but it's probably better to ask DSA what the requirements are.
[...]
> > - Requiring a lot more than two buildds to stay as current;
> > - Not having sufficient buildd redundancy for when the next netwinder
> > does a halt and catch fire.
>
> Current buildd's are quite old. If we can get hold of faster arm systems
> with more ram it should be easier. Also, if I have understood correctly,
> the objection of more than two buildd's comes from the maintainence
> overhead. If we can get a pile of exactly similar arm hardware
> maintained at the same place, having identical hardware setup, there
> _should_ not be any more maintainence overhead, than say a s390 with
> multiple partitions.
Another item that was brought up was the problem of security. More build
daemons means a larger attack vector.
--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond
Reply to: