On 03/20/2012 04:58 PM, Brendan Conoboy 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?
My #1 problem would be "making packages compilable" and bug-hunting
arch-specific compilation problems.
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?
Yes, because "building primary archs first" doesn't help when
build-problems are secondary arch specific.
That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
be inevitable, which would at least help for the class of issues, I am
referring to above.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
