On Wednesday 16 April 2008 19:16:58 Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 05:25:39PM +0200, Holger Freyther wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 April 2008 17:01:18 Andy Green wrote: > > > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > > | - IIRC debian disabled buildd's due issues with qemu (more than > > > the > > > | philosophy) > > > > > > I googled around about these, I didn't see about it on the Wikipedia > > > entry or another link about ARM-specific QEMU from there. > > > > I mostly watched this on planet.debian.org back then. I think this blog > > http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=33 kicked it of. And even there he is talking > > about strange failures. Uploads by his buildd were disabled shortly > > afterwards. :) > > That's not actually what was going on there - no official Debian buildd > has ever been emulated. > > The "strange failures" mentioned in Aurelien's blog post were on a real > ARM box then used as a buildd (a rather old one that had been working > much harder than it might ever have expected to). He then decided to > start uploading packages built by himself on an emulated ARM system, > unfortunately not coordinating with the ARM buildd maintainers, which > resulted in ARM uploads by anyone not an ARM buildd maintainer being > disabled. The considerations driving that decision did include concerns > about possible problems from emulation but weren't restricted to that at > all.
Ah, sorry I got it wrong then. The critique on using emulation remains though. :)
