Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Platform support
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/21/2007 19:45:01
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:24:33PM -0400, Mark E. Perkins wrote:
> On 7/21/07 12:11 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > A bulk build is again a relative low
> > barrier.
> For some platforms a bulk build is an unreasonably high barrier, I think. In
> particular, I (personally) consider NetBSD/mac68k a supported platform. There
> is no regular bulk build (the last one was in ~2001 according to a *quick*
> search of the archives), but I can build the packages I need. And a bulk
> build for mac68k would be mostly wasted effort IMO (I don't want/need/care
> about the monster pkgs like kde, gnome, etc., on mac68k).
So, why is mc68k a supported platform if major parts are excluded? What
you just wrote is quite different from "it doesn't work". Just because
KDE/Gnome/Firefox might not make sense to use doesn't mean they should
be ignored "'cause I don't care". Someone else might. Having him wait a
week to find out trivial errors is not that friendly either. Sure that
can happen with bulk builds as well. BUT WE AT LEAST TRIED.
Besides, a combination of pbulk and distcc with a number of mac68k nodes
a modern PC as build backend should be able to get the build done in a
reasonable time frame. This makes this argument even less compelling to