Hi Stefano!
On 02/09/2015 08:07 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hi John (2015.02.09_00:36:31_+0200)
Please let the decision whether a certain package should be built on
a certain architecture up to the porters.
OK, you make persuasive arguments. I'll remove it.
Thank you very much! I appreciate
Hi John (2015.02.09_00:36:31_+0200)
Please let the decision whether a certain package should be built on
a certain architecture up to the porters.
OK, you make persuasive arguments. I'll remove it.
At the time this check was implemented, many of Debian's architectures
had a wide range of RAM
Hello Stefano!
Is that not a decision for those porters to make? What's the
disadvantage of letting it continue to try to build there?
Exactly, it should be up to the porters whether we want a particular
package to build on a certain target architecture or not and the package
maintainer should
Package: pypy
Currently pypy refuses to build on the armhf and mipsel buildds because
they have less than 1400 MiB of ram (the most recent build log for
mipsel reports 967 MiB, the most recent one for armhf reports 1011 MiB).
I appreciate that grinding swap on buildds is less than ideal but
Hi peter (2013.11.22_20:36:12_+0200)
I assume this was bug was triggered by the thread on
pkg-openstack-devel. My reply there hasn't appeared in the archives yet
- so I'll repeat the relevant bits here.
I appreciate that grinding swap on buildds is less than ideal but I
still think it is
5 matches
Mail list logo
