On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)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.
-J
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie