Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria (was: Vancouver meeting - clarifications)
Steve Langasek dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800]:
> > There are packages we recognize will be of little use in certain
> > architectures - say, KDE on m68k, qemu on a !i386, etc. They should be
> > built anyway on all architectures where expected to run be buildable,
> > anyway, as a QA measure - many subtle bugs appear as the result of
> > architecture-specific quirks.
>
> > "Architecture: any" means "build anywhere". We could introduce a
> > second header, say, Not-deploy-for: or Not-required-for:. This would
> > mean that KDE _would_ be built for m68k if the buildds are not too
> > busy doing other stuff, and probably would not enter our archive (or
> > would enter a different section - just as we now have contrib and
> > non-free, we could introduce not-useful ;-) )
>
> 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?
As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three
chips, not all. And, by not making a hard requirement to compile the
packages which will not be used, you are not holding the project back
waiting for m68k's KDE. Probably m68k will _never_ compile KDE, as I
doubt their buildds are ever idle - But what do you prefer, say, for
our ia64 buildd, to just sit there waiting for a new package to
arrive, or to start compiling something that will be useful only for
QA, and only probably?
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)1451-2244 / 5554-9450
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: