Bug#1033065: release-notes: i386 notes should specify minimum CPU requirements
Followup-For: Bug #1033065
X-Debbugs-Cc: ballombe@debian.org, pabs@debian.org
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:31:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > Perhaps lintian could add classification tags for the relevant CPU
> > > instructions and then the i386 port could have extra autopkgtest nodes
> > > that only process the packages detected by lintian.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:05:24 +0000, James Addison wrote:
> > That's not a bad idea. Are there any reasons that that might _not_ be a good
> > idea before filing a wishlist bug? (performance, implications of scanning
> > binary packages, ...)
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 20:58:28 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> This seems logistically problematic.
> Is lintian actually ran on i386 binaries anymore ?
> lintian.debian.org only lists reports for amd64 packages.
Yep, some i386 binary package analysis does still take place I believe, based
on running an UDD query[1] that found results with a recent version of lintian
(since 2023-02-05) including some i386 shared libraries in the output.
The data on lintian.debian.org (detagtive) appears out-of-date, though. There
is an existing issue report[2] about that.
> I am not sure it is worth the trouble, frankly. I do not see what this would
> bring us.
A lintian check could help to notify maintainers about architecture baseline
compatibility issues. Running autopkgtests for those could help to (although
is not guaranteed to) confirm whether the identified packages are broken,
without rerunning tests across all packages.
[1] - https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=gcc-12-cross&ignpackages=&format=html<_information=on&lintian_tag=static-library-has-unneeded-sections#all
[2] - https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/detagtive/-/issues/22
Reply to: