On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 23:36 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Niels Thykier wrote... > > [ topic shift ] > > > On a related note: Having some way to declare minimum requirements for > > e.g. disk space and memory (a la "base GB usage + GB usage/core") used > > would be great. > > Especially if it is available in metadata, so wanna-build can see > > whether it makes sense to assign a given package to a given build-node. > > This is a charming idea altough I have doubt it will work out: As > usual the information has to be kept up-to-date, so unless it is > collected and verified every now and then automatically, it will > become unsuable pretty soon. > > Otherwise, there are more things I could use in such a buildd routing > table: I remember I've seen packages failing to build > > * when using eatmydata
I can certainly think of a test case that would be broken by eatmydata and I would not want to rule out such test cases. But still, I am suprised by this. > * on sbuild using overlayfs overlayfs is sadly quite a way from being a POSIX-compliant filesystem. So it seems unreasonable to expect every package to be buildable in such a build environment. > * using a qemu build chroot (Debian doesn't do this, other might) Is that because QEMU is slow, or some other reason? > * with /tmp on tmpfs on some archs [...] You mean the 64-bit PowerPC architectures? tmpfs allocates at least a page per file, and they have 64K pages... Ben. -- Ben Hutchings 73.46% of all statistics are made up.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
