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

Re: How severe are FTBFS bugs caused by the source using uname?

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:21:19AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> >> % uname -a
> >> Linux dual 2.6.5-amd64 #2 Sun May 9 16:34:33 UTC 2004 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >>                                                       ^^^^^^

> > A FTBFS on an architecture that is not yet a release candidate is not an
> > RC bug.  Presumably, using uname does not cause substantial problems on
> > release candidate archs, or this would have come up for discussion long
> > ago.  Since your policy citation includes no "must" requirements, I
> > don't see that this is anything more than an important bug.

> It is an architecture of a release candidate: _i386_.

> Its just not one of the old CPUs previously used for that
> architecture: _x86_64 instead of i?86.

> Think of x86_64 as i786.

> The problem is that the architecture and the cpu differ and uname
> looks at the cpu and not the architecture. Yes, its something new
> since the cpu doesn't match the "i?86-*" pattern in the configure
> scripts anymore.

> But I can live with important. I don't think wishlist is ok as some
> maintainer seem to think. Any other thoughts?

Ah.  In this case, I agree that it's important at minimum.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: