On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the >> criteria, >> as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686 >> currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes in 4 hours if a slower or >> more >> busy box is chosen, but on ARM it regularly builds 2 days. That is a slow >> down factor of 12x-24x, guess for other larger packages it is similar. > > > Our current build systems can turn GCC 4.7 around in about 24 hours. The > enterprise hardware we anticipate using will take that down to about 12 > hours. If speed of build hardware is a consideration, where do you draw the > line? No secondary arch is going to get to the speed of x86_64 in the > foreseeable future, so it's effectively a way to keep PA an exclusive x86 > club. > > I think the real question is, for the developers of on devel-list, how will > longer builds for one arch than another affect your workflow? If builds on > two architectures start at the same time, but one takes longer to finish > than the other, how will that impact you? Right now you'll still be able to > see and use the results of the faster build before the slower build > completes, so are you materially impacted? Actually, I hadn't thought about it that way before, but having a build fail on x86 or x86_64 would allow me to kill the ARM build and save load on the ARM buildsys. A win, if it's going to fail anyway. -J > -- > Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
