Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:38:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently some R packages received bugs that seem to stem from a problem
> with the build setup (specifically, a qemu bug). When I asked back in
> one of the bugs[1] whether there are real m68k users I've got the answer
>
> ... there are still some users with actual hardware, but the
> autobuilders use qemu for better performance and/or reliability
>
> I conclude that the Debian project is running no real m68k hardware any
> more (please correct me if I'm wrong) and we are possibly doing a
> service for some users who potentially also run qemu (wild guess of
> mine). I'm wondering when it might be time to fully drop a hardware
> port instead of draining developer time for ethernity.
I understand your desire to not be bothered with bugs that are not
yours. That makes sense.
However, it does *not* make sense to then tell others that their work is
not welcome anymore. If people want to spend time doing what you think
is useless busywork, then, as long as they don't bother you with things
that aren't your fault, why not let them?
Under "don't bother you with things", I mean to say that:
- Bugs should not be filed unless it can be reproduced on actual
hardware.
- Bugs should not be filed at RC severity unless the bug is reproducible
on a release architecture, or can be proven to be an actual bug in the
package
As for the former: Adrian, I recently passed a bunch of m68k machines to
you. Would it make sense to set (some of) those up as secondary buildd
hosts? That is, try to build everything on emulated machines first
(because those are much faster). If something FTBFS, try to rebuild it
on hardware. If it FTBFS there, bugs can be filed; if not, upload the
package and track down the emulator bug...?
(if you're already working on that, then ignore what I said :-)
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
Reply to: