On 2016-03-06, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sonntag, 6. März 2016, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> Ah, looking at: >> >> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/reproducible.html ... >> I guess it must just use the number of CPUs for first build, and number >> of CPUs-1 for the second build (at least on armhf)? > > yup, that's true on armhf, the variation table there is inaccurate. (Patches > welcome…) > > I'm also pondering to change it to use CPUs+1 for the first builds and CPUs > for the 2nd ones.
That would be interesting, although I was thinking we might want to do a fewer number of CPUs on the first build, to make it more likely the second build doesn't timeout. e.g. If your first build is with 4 CPUs (from one of the quad-cores), and your second builds with 1 CPU (a dual-core), you're more likely to reach the timeout limit on the second build... So combining the two ideas, I guess I would propose CPUs for first build, and CPUs+1 for the second build? live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
