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

Re: Relaxing testing requirements (was: summarising answers to Vancouver critique)

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:51 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at> [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
> > * relaxing "arch-specific" to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
> > from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
> > whatever reason he has)
> Why do we make a package foo's entry to testing dependent on whether
> foo has been compiled for all arches, including all dependencies?
> Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
> Sure, the package set will differ across architectures, but they do
> already...
> I see the main advantage of this approach to put a little pressure
> onto the maintainers of less popular arches, who will have an
> interest to make things work for their arch,

This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on
x86, x86-64 & ppc.  Who cares about lame old and/or arches like 
m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?"

Thus, I foresee 
1. even more disparity between the popular arches and the tiny ones.
2. difficulty with bugs.  How do you close a bug, if it doesn't work
   on some arches?  The open bug count would go even higher.

>                                              and thus might try to
> persuade others *on an individual basis* to fix their packages for
> arches which are currently not supported cleanly.
> Am I making sense?

Yes, but I disagree.

Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"You are wrong in thinking that I dislike wholehearted pacifism,
though I do think it mistaken. What I object to is the
circumspect kind of pacifism which denounces one kind of violence
while endorsing or avoiding mention of another."
George Orwell, 1944, in correspondence with a British pacifist

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: