Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being >> > raised and answered] >> >> > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture >> > > restricted to 2 or 3? >> > >> > - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with >> > package uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while >> > slower, low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain >> > applications, they are a) unlikely to be able to usefully run >> > much of the software we currently expect our ports to build, and >> > b) definitely too slow in terms of single-package build times to >> > avoid inevitably delaying high-priority package fixes for RC >> > bugs. >> >> a) is true for some big packages like GNOME and KDE, but that >> does not impede the architecture's usefulness for other software >> we have in the archive. > > Also it is an example of ridiculously large source packages, which > create other problems by themself like the amount of bandwidth wasted > when one has to apply a one-line fix, in particular for security updates. > > Why not considering splitting those source packages? IIRC, this is > planned for the X11 source packages. This seems a better option overall. > GNOME is already comprised of many source packages. I guess KDE is a bigger problem, as it seems to have less and bigger source packages and is C++, which is considerably more expensive to compile than C.
Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 Life is a sexually transmitted disease. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]