Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria (was: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> As pointed out in a recent thread, most of the core hardware portability
> issues are picked up just by building on "the big three" -- i386, powerpc,
> amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
> useful to build it as a "QA measure"? What value is there, in fact, in
> checking for bugs that will only be tripped while building software that
> isn't going to be used?
Because bugs are bugs, no matter if they bite us currently.
That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
architectures that have a working installer, and then only have full
official releases for a limited set of architectures.
This way, we'd both satisfy people using Debian as a base for
embedded and other customised systems, and most (but not all)
porters. Of course some people are never satisfied, but then again,
there is no way to solve this that makes everyone happy.
[1] Hopefully, I might remember incorrectly.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Northern lights wander (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Reply to: