Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Henning Makholm (email@example.com) [050319 22:05]:
> > Scripsit David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> > > Climent, that we should have base set of software (where base is
> > > probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
> > > architectures that have a working installer, and then only have full
> > > official releases for a limited set of architectures.
> > Such a base set of software would surely include a compiler toolchain,
> > wouldn't it? If sounds plausible that the toolchain is the collection
> > of software where architecture-specific bugs are _most_ likely to turn
> > up, so would we actually have gained anything then?
> Well, the toolchain is perhaps not the part where they turn up most
> likely, but it's the part that creates most of the workload and delays.
Uh. Most porting bugs that require attention fall in one of the
* Toolchain problems (Internal Compiler Errors, mostly)
* Mistakes made by the packager. Quite easy to fix, usually.
* Incorrect assumptions in the source code. These are becoming
increasingly rare these days, IME.
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
-- with thanks to fortune