On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:45PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > The speed of buildd systems mostly becomes irrelevant. They will > > still have to keep up with base (the set of .debs that we do > > distribute for a SO arch). Anything past that is there just for QA > > purposes -- to make sure packages are buildable on these archs, and > > would be optional. > > This is the problem. How do you make sure that the package is buildable > on the architecture without building it? And if you have built it why not > just add it to the archives. :) So you still need a buildd. :(
Not necessarily. I think if we make it easy for end users to perform selective builds we have a chance of making it work. > > So, what do you think? Could this work? > > Nice idea, but I do not really see the benefit, more than on ftp disk space > and security update speed. While I would like to *not* see a change to the build structure, I agree that removing lesser used arch's from the testing & guaranteed support infrastructure gives room for higher frequency releases. IMHO, the disk space issue is a red herring. Security updates, too, are not the primary concern, it's getting all of the cats out the door with some frequency. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
