RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

Jon Ciesla limburgher at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 16:00:45 UTC 2012

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Brendan Conoboy <blc at redhat.com> 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.


> --
> Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

More information about the devel mailing list