On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 02:56:19PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > This can go either way. Right now we have the potential for well-tested > packages in one architecture that the maintainer uploads (typically > i386) and the near certainty that the other architectures will still get > untested packages. So i386 is probably slightly getting better testing of > packages, but then, it's getting better testing anyway since so many of > our users use that architecture. And by extension, having less-tested packages on other architectures is often less of a problem; e.g., I'm fairly sure the Nautilus binaries have never been tested to make sure they run on Linux-arm, and I'm also pretty sure that no one really cares. ;) Given the current makeup of the Debian community, trying to hunt down runtime failures on uncommon architectures is about the last place I would focus QA efforts, IMHO; an RC runtime failure in a package is usually a good indication that the userbase for that package on the given architecture isn't very large (or is non-existent). Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpeUqgdRpzqP.pgp
Description: PGP signature