On Monday 14 March 2005 15:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]: > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > >> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so, > >> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built. > >> > >> How often should the queue be emptied, or when will an architecture be > >> declarared not-keeping-up? > > > > In light of > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html > > the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number > > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages > > at least once per day for etch. > > That means no more m68k. Given that some packages compile up to 12 > days there will be plenty of times the queue doesn't empty once per > day.
Perhaps that was a slight misunderstanding: the Nybbles only require "the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages" with N <= 2. The part about emptying once per day was only added by Andreas. Considering the effects of a twelve-day build of something big like KDE, GNOME or X: delays in security updates, shlib-deps, build-depends and testing migration, I can see the roots of the requirements on buildds. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
