El sÃb, 19-03-2005 a las 04:13 -0600, Bill Allombert escribiÃ: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised > > > and > > > answered] > > > > > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted > > > > to > > > > 2 or 3? > > > > > > - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package > > > uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while slower, > > > low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain applications, they are > > > a) unlikely to be able to usefully run much of the software we currently > > > expect our ports to build, and b) definitely too slow in terms of > > > single-package build times to avoid inevitably delaying high-priority > > > package fixes for RC bugs. > > > > a) is true for some big packages like GNOME and KDE, but that > > does not impede the architecture's usefulness for other software > > we have in the archive. > > Also it is an example of ridiculously large source packages, which > create other problems by themself like the amount of bandwidth wasted > when one has to apply a one-line fix, in particular for security updates.
FYI GNOME is not a unique source package but a bunch of source packages, that can be (and are) upgraded independently. The only point when almost all them must be uploaded together is when a new release is made, and even then things don't need to go in a one push upload. Cheers, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
