Hi Luke, Am Freitag 06 Oktober 2006 10:14 schrieb Luke Yelavich: > Hi all > As I am sure many of us are aware, it is important that we test build a > package before uploading/getting sponsored to upload a package to > universe. For the most part this is fine. We have chroots/pbuilders set > up for this reason. Yet there are times when a package may build > successfully on one architecture, yet fail on another. Often most of us > don't know this is the case, until the package hits the build servers, > and fails to build, as we do not have access to that architecture's > hardware to test build on. > > Some of us are lucky enough to have access to more than one Ubuntu > supported architecture, the most common being amd64 and i386, as amd64 > machines can handle i386. Then there are also more of us who happen to > have access to PowerPC hardware, and so it goes on. If we remember often > enough, we may also run a test build of a package on these other > architectures, just to be safe. However, there are also those of us who > may only have one or two machines, which are likely to be i386.
Just a side note: I've heard rumors that qemu can be used to simulate some other arches. Maybe it might also help to do some digging in this direction. > > I think it is time that a few of us put our heads together, and came up > with a solution to allow people who have access to less common > architectures donate some CPU cycles and bandwidth for others to test > build/debug architecture specific build failures. Such donation has > already been done by Brandon Holtsclaw, who has donated access to a few > MOTUs for building/testing. This has been beneficial for both Brandon, > who has access to the hardware, and the MOTUs who have accounts on the > donated hardware, as they can produce packages that are a lot more > likely to build on all architectures. > > I am also sure there are many of us out there who have hardware they > would like to donate access to, but haven't got around to doing so. I > have a few ideas on a feature set for such implementation, but I would > like to get comments/suggestions from others in the MOTU community about > this idea. In the longterm, I personally believe that such a setup would > benefit the MOTU community, and will help further improve the quality of > packages we make available. I think this is a very good idea. I could have used access to an arch I don't have to fix some arch-specific build-failures more than once already :). Cheers, Stefan.
pgpqROgLRlWTx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
