Bug#907829: p4est: FTBFS on single CPU machines (?)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:19:04PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 09:55:25PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Control: severity -1 important
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 05:21:28PM +0000, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > >...
> > > The error message (not enough slots available) suggests that this package is
> > > not ready to be built on single-CPU machines.
> > >...
> > 
> > This matches the build failure on hppa, but is not a problem for any 
> > release architecture buildd.
> 
> Hmm, I don't follow your line of reasoning here.
> 
> This is not an architecture-specific bug which only happens on
> unreleased architectures.
> 
> Instead, this happened to me on amd64, which is a release architecture.

But not on any autobuilder for a release architecture.

> The fact that our current amd64 autobuilders have several CPUs is
> *accidental*, not a *property* of the amd64 architecture.

It is not accidental and it is not a property of the amd64 architecture.
It is de facto mandatory for every autobuilder for a release architecture.

All autobuilders for all 10 release architectures have more than
one CPU, s390x buildds have 2 CPUs and all others at least 4 CPUs.

Single-CPU has become very exotic.

Today even $30 embedded boards have 4 CPUs, a machine that has the 
>= 4 GB RAM required for a buildd usually has more than one CPU.

And an autobuilders needs more than one CPU, since it shouldn't regress 
compared to the slowest current autobuilders that have 4 CPUs.

Lower-end embedded devices like the $5 Raspberry Pi Zero might have
only one CPU, but they are both from CPU power and amount of RAM
far too weak for an autobuilder.

> Thanks.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed