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

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:10:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Julien BLACHE 

> > | A bug is a bug, whether it triggers or not.

> > It's not RC and therefore not a priority if it has no effect.

> The primary question, I think, is whether one can be 100% sure whether a
> bug that results in an FTBFS on only one out of eleven platforms will
> not have any effect whatsoever on another platform.

Surely that's not sufficient reason for treating it as release-critical?
That would be little better than filing bugs against all packages saying
"we think this program may break under some circumstances, which would be
RC, so please find them and fix them before release"...

Portability bugs are bugs, and generally worth fixing, but we really ought
to be giving higher priority to bugs that are known to have real effects on
users, don't you think?

> Usually, the answer to that one is "no, you can't be sure". FTBFS bugs
> that occur on only one platform are rare, very rare; most build failures
> are mistakes in packaging (which usually have effect on all
> architectures, rather than just one) or things such as incorrect
> assumptions regarding char signedness or word length, that have effect
> on all big endian or 64-bit platforms. Of course, these usually result
> in runtime errors rather than compile time ones.

And various of those bugs, when they are *known* to imply runtime brokenness
on release architectures, should be regarded as release-critical; but that's
not really generalizable to "all porting bugs".

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: