Steve Langasek wrote:
>Hi Gunnar, > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > >>And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really >>checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as >>Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although probably not >>currently as reliable as those two). > > >>Now, if we face dropping one or more of our architectures (i.e. m68k) >>because new hardware can not be found anymore (the Vancouver proposal >>mentions that "the release architecture must be publicly available to >>buy new" in order to keep it as a fully supported architecture - I >>know, SCC != fully supported, but anyway, a buildd can die and create >>huge problems to a port), why shouldn't we start accepting buildds >>running under emulated machines? > > >I quite agree with Anthony that if we have to emulate the machine, >there's not much sense in supporting it.
This makes no sense to me. There is a lot of embedded machines out there that can, for instance, run a web browser (graphical links, w3m or even mini-mo) but are not capable of running g++ (to give an example, and hence they are not capable of /building/ mini-mo).
So, if you can emulate this machine in an amd64 1000x faster and with 100x more RAM, you can build an entire Debian system, and permit the installation of a base system with the needed features for the embedded application.
>I do know, from first-hand experience trying to get ssh running on a >Cobalt, that compilation speed is not always correlated with the >usefulness of a system; so I'm not completely opposed to using distcc >(in moderation!) for release architectures, but I would still first >like to see some serious discussion about why it's useful to build all >the software we do for all the architectures before agreeing that such >a distcc network is warranted. >
Other question I have is: why the "(in moderation!)" comment? I think distcc and ccache should be used thoroughly (sorry if this is the wrong spelling) in the buildd process, and I have not seen any moderate, rational and good argument in contrary.
Regards,
Massa
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]