This is a very important initiative. However it may require trusted users to provide more build slaves for package rebuilds to be done in reasonable amount of time. I can provide one for example :) Once this is proved to work reliably I'd even suggest to remove raw access for uploading packages to prevent even theoretical sloppy mistakes.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/11/14 00:16, Florian Pritz wrote: > > On 10.11.2014 12:37, Allan McRae wrote: > >> I think this is something we need to bring on board as an official > >> project at some stage! > > > > +1, I'd love to see this data get merged into our main site (especially > > a "not-building" table in the dev dashboard). > > > > > > To Joel: > > > > Only issue I've noticed so far is that multilib is apparently not > > enabled and therefore virtualbox, chromium and syslinux fail because > > they can't find lib32 dependencies. > > > > What kind of hardware backs this and how long does a full rebuild of all > > packages take? > > > > Apart from that, awesome idea and nice interface (maybe missing a > > maintainer filter, but you don't really have that data I guess). > > > > PS: I'm sending this to arch-general so discussion can continue on one > > list (if you want that). > > > > I asked the build time earlier. Here is Joel's answer: > > "I have it record the build time for each package, so if I just add the > average build times it gives around 6 days to build all the packages in > core, extra, and community. That's for a single core build on one > machine. I usually build multiple packages on each machine at once as a > large portion of the time is often spent downloading sources. " >
