Re: The 98% and N<=2 criteria
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050321 16:55]:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst (email@example.com) [050321 15:05]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > following areas:
> > > * 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.
> > Exactly. And if you s/workload/workload for the release team/, than the
> > first one is the usual spot for issues for us. The middle one is fixed
> No. Because you can always consider to leave the package out for that
> specific architecture (except if it would be a really important one).
I don't get why you write "No" here. :)
Frankly speaking, if some arch decides to have no XServer (like s390),
I don't really care. The toolchain issues are the one where I care
because they either delay all archs, or lead to removing one arch more
or less in total (or to any combination of both). Also, toolchain issues
usually requires much more attention to remove a random binary package
on a certain arch.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C