On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aur�lien Jarno wrote: > Hamish Moffatt a �crit : > > I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the > > hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing > > unstable, especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds. > > So the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds is not well choosen. Why > such a requirement? m68k prooved that having a lot of buildd is not a > problem, *if they are correctly managed* (which is the case for m68k).
IANARM, but I outline the possible reasons in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg00866.html | Considering the effects of a twelve-day build of something big like KDE, | GNOME or X: delays in security updates, shlib-deps, build-depends and | testing migration, I can see the roots of the requirements on buildds. Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security response time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 arches but not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir �ber ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
