Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hi peter (2013.11.22_20:36:12_+0200)
I assume this was bug was triggered by the thread on
pkg-openstack-devel.
It was not, it was triggered by me poking through buildd pages and
noticing that the new version of simplejson was being blocked from
building since it had picked up a dependency on pypy. I did consider
filing a bug asking them to only build pypy stuff on architectures that
had pypy but I decided to file a bug on pypy first and see what the
response was.
My reply there hasn't appeared in the archives yet
- so I'll repeat the relevant bits here.
I appreciate that grinding swap on buildds is less than ideal but I
still think it is preferable to not having the package on those
architectures at all. Especially as slow architectures are where
having optimised implementations of stuff is most important.
Is that not a decision for those porters to make? What's the
disadvantage of letting it continue to try to build there?
It seems fairly harmless, to me. After installing the build-deps the
package realises there isn't enough RAM, and aborts, wasting only a few
minutes of buildd time.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear, what I meant to say is
"I still think it is preferable to grind swap on a buildd for a few days
than to not have the package built at all"
We accept build times in the days for several other packages, I don't
see why we shouldn't accept them for pypy. Or do you think a pypy build
with only 1GB of ram would take more than a "few days"?
I personally have a machine that's capable, and if the Debian armhf
porters would like me to, I'd be quite happy to do binary uploads for
it, when necessary.
I also have armhf machines with more than 1GB of ram but AIUI policy
requires that packages be buildable on the autobuilders :/.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
