[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/30/2007 11:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:07:04AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
>>> In other words, by only failing a build when a primary arch fails, we
>>> enable the inclusion of many other architectures for those who care
>>> about them, without imposing additional burdens on all maintainers
>>> (who may not care about them).
>> We have that already. The existing policy, allowing ExcludeArch but
>> requiring a bug to be filed, works extremely well.
>>
>>> Otherwise, why bother making a distinction at all?
>> A question which had occurred to me also. We seem to be trying to
>> 'solve' a problem which hasn't actually been demonstrated to exist yet.
>>
>> For building (and scheduling) actual releases, there may be some point
>> in making the distinction. For the routine package builds, it seems
>> unnecessary.
> 
> There is a problem, while the ppc{,64} koji buildboxes aren't the slowest
> thing in the world, in my experience they are 25% to 100%
> slower than the i?86/x86_64 boxes (I'm always waiting on them for gcc/glibc
> etc. builds) and with addition of sparc{,64} that will be still orders of
> magnitude slower (not sure what hardware is planned for koji sparc* builds,
> but even 8way UltraII is horribly slow).  So for secondary arches
> we really need async builds instead of sync builds.

Right. I don't what is planned for Alpha - of course I can install
necessary services on my DS10 (EV67, 667 Mhz, 512MB) to provide builder
functionality. However, compiling glibc or gcc will take longer on most
secondary archs (not ia64 of course). If Fedora can get some ES class
machine Alpha builds would be quite fast... I know at HP there are some
people having spare machines or machine with spare cpu cycles........
Don't know how/if/if they want to provide some kind of 'service' to
Fedora...

kernel, glibc, gcc will be the major 'low level packages' that will fail
a few times 'til we get 'em compile fine.

- -of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGXUeAxWN5Ge8lKUMRAua1AJ434VKyKPBTUAf70GBoqvdWaoULjgCfZu/M
CD/GyH08LOs79ld2oEFI9bQ=
=nwV0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]