[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 03/28/2018 04:59 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I see no point in your repeated "to be honest" and blame others about
> low quality.  If in doubt read these three bug logs:
>    #882555, #887680, #887682
> All say
>    this failure turned out to stem from a problem with the build
>    setup (specifically, a qemu bug); sorry for the noise.

I did not report any of those issues as I am aware of some QEMU bugs
that can occur from time to time. QEMU bugs still deserve to be fixed.

> Getting fake bugs of severity important due to the fact that no real
> hardware is used since it is to weak is not really convincing for
> maintainers to spent time on it.

How is it a fake bug if the bug was actually in QEMU? Also, again, I
did not report any of those bugs and I wouldn't have reported them
as I usually start looking at QEMU myself first.

> Besides the fact that you went totally off topic with blaming scientific
> software about its quality:  Yes, there is some share of low quality
> software in science as in every other field.  We are working hard to get
> it fixed.  If there are real bugs in the code these will occure not only
> on m68k but also on other less used architectures and we try to sort
> this out with upstream.

I have worked as a physicist myself for a long time and also did numerical
physics and have dealt with a lot of software written by scientists. The
quality of scientific software is usually of exceptional low quality
because 90% of those scientists are neither programmers nor do they
care of adhering to any common quality standards when developing

Furthermore, from my own experience, most people compile scientific
software from source anyway due to performance reasons, especially
when it comes to using them for large calculations. So I don't see
a point for having to package all of that in Debian.

> Your mail was quite convincing to me to simply do what I said (severity
> minor + wontfix) since receiving agressive responses is one more reason
> for me not to spent my time on this.

Honestly, what kind of response did you expect when your first suggestion
to address these issues is to completely destroy the work of others? Do
you actually think this is acceptable? You weren't asking for a compromise
or a constructive discussion, you right away wanted to use the most
radical solution and now you tell me that I am aggressive. Great.


 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Reply to: