Re: buildfarm and "rolling release" distros

Re: Craig Ringer 2014-07-02 <53B39638(dot)9010502(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > +1. The buildfarm has one such member already, anchovy, and I recall it
> > having given at least one helpful forewarning. It shows as "Arch Linux
> > testing [updated daily]", which is sufficient annotation for me. Its failure
> > rate has been low; member-caused failures due to ENOSPC and other miscellany
> > are a good deal more common.
>
> Yep - I see early notice of new gcc "special" behaviour, etc as quite
> valuable.
>
> If we're dubious about a result, we wait a few days and see if it goes
> away on its own.

I was looking at the zoo some time ago and was surprised there's only
a single animal running Debian unstable/testing - and that's on ia64
which Debian killed some months ago because no one seemed to care
enough about maintaining the toolchain. Is this because
unstable/testing are considered rolling releases? (On a second look,
dugong seems to be running etch/4.0, which is... old.)

My plan was to set up two animals, amd64 and i386, using the compiler
flags we are using for the Debian packages, though I was still waiting
for a VM in a soon-to-be-there cluster at credativ. That would have
catched the ASLR problems we discussed some weeks ago quite early, I
guess.

Does it make sense to look into setting up that target?

Christoph
--
cb(at)df7cb(dot)de | http://www.df7cb.de/