On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > (sorry for jumping in late here) > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > > > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use > > > resources hosted by Marist. > > > > > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are > > > resources available to use as porter boxes & build boxes. That way > > > Debian might be able to get such donated resource available on ongoing > > > basis and hopefully with some hw support. > > > > Marist already support Debian with an s390x buildd: > > > > ldapsearch -LLL -x -h db.debian.org -b ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org > > "(sponsor=*marist*)" > > https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=zani > > > > Our other sponsors for s390 are www.iic.kit.edu and www.zivit.de: > > > > ldapsearch -LLL -x -h db.debian.org -b ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org > > "(architecture=s390*)" sponsor > > Given that we already seem to have three hardware sponsors for the s390x > port, is this really a concern?
Our standard for buildd / porterboxen of a released architecture is: - multiple machines (N + 1, N sufficient to handle the buildd / porter load) - under warranty or post-warranty hardware support for the duration of their use as buildds / porterboxen including through the LTS timeframe - located in multiple geographic locations (EU and NA, ideally) - hosted by different hosting partners, each providing high availability (power, cooling, networking) and intelligent remote hands - under Debian control and/or ownership; available & affordable - redundant disks and power supplies - out-of-band service processor with power management or equivalent Not satisfying the fifth bullet is a minor concern in the case of s390x. > If we were to lose one sponsor, we'd still have two (and it would be > reasonable to try to ensure that we get a new sponsor to replace the one > lost). Indeed. The more redundnant sponsors, the less worrying is the concern. > How about making it a requirement that there is some level of redundancy > in sponsors for ports where hardware cannot be easily bought with Debian > money? That would cover the s390x port as well as any potential other > insanely-expensive-hardware port[1] that we might support now or in the > future. That is our requirement, effectively. The mild concern has not blocked the port from releasing. That said, the concern should be documented. > If push comes to shove, we could also talk to IBM. Pretty much all POWER > hardware we have was sponsored by IBM; it's not unreasonable to assume they > might be willing to also sponsor s390x time or hardware. -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
