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

Re: A question about update-excuses (was Re: testing is broken)

On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:56:56PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 03:28:09AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> >> the powerpc buildd is a dual G4 greater then 400Mhz.  i don't think
> >> another powerpc buildd will make much difference.  fixing broken
> >> packages on the other hand will.  
> >
> >Blaming it on broken packages doesn't explain why powerpc buildd is
> >so far behind. 
> Well, it can do.  Certainly the ARM buildd often finds itself unable to make 
> progress because all the unbuilt packages are either broken themselves or 
> depend on something else that is.  It would be interesting to redo the 
> statistics for out-of-date package percentages so that packages with RC 
> bugs were excluded.

If I understand the problems with the ARM buildd, the problem is not
with the packages, but instead GCC, which is a touch flaky on the ARM.
I can see a lot of packages missing build-depends or something that
will kill them on all the builders, but how many packages actually 
have bugs specific to one architecture?

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Attachment: pgpW6De5LAZ2x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: