On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 05:50:33PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > >One thing I'd like to avoid is growing the diversity of buildd's we >have. If we have many different buildd hardware, each of buildd >classes needs different kind of maintainence. So when add a new type >of hw for buildd's, it should go in tandem of getting rid of another >type of hw. > >So if we go with nitrogenx 2GB, are we ready to get rid of locos?
Possibly, if we're happy that they're stable and supportable. >> > Is debian kernel an absolute requirement, or are we prepared to risk a >> > custom kernel if we think it'll only be for 6 months? > >> If DSA absolutely requires kernel support then I don't think there is >> much we can do. And I don't think that's a promise anyone could actually >> make, that we expect mainline support to be fixed in the next 6 months. > >It's not just DSA, it is also in our porters best interests. We don't >want to end up in the situtation where glibc/udev/systemd/ruby needs >features from a new kernel version, while we are stuck in a old kernel. Absolutely. We had these issues with the locos fairly soon after we started, and I was worried whether or not we'd get sufficient upstream kernel support to keep them usable. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131115164910.gf14...@einval.com