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,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to