On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:05:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le Lun 22 Août 2005 10:29, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > > The "reasonable foundation" for having a redundant buildd in a > > > separate physical location is, I think, well-established. Any > > > random facility can lose power, perform big router upgrades, burn > > > down, etc. Debian machines also seem to be prone to bad RAM, bad > > > power supplies, bad disk arrays, and the like, and these things > > > can't always be fixed within a tight time window. > > > > The problem is not requiring a redundant buildd, the problem is > > the arbitrary limit on the amount of 'buildd machines' of 2. > > if one of one buildd is down, or more likely if one piece of network > behind the buildd and the rest of the world is down for 1 month, or > worse than down : malfunctioning (with some nice tcp connections > loss) ... then if such a thing happens during : > * the c++ transition (that is a *real* pain for the buildd's) > * 2 weeks before a major distro freeze > * <any other hell scenario> > what can you do ? the answer is wait and pray. *great* > > No, 2 buildd's machines is a minimum requirement that is *not* > arbitrary, it's only wisdom. >
I think you misunderstood me here. The limit is a upper limit, not a lower limit. Cheers, Peter (p2).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
