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

Re: vancouver revisited

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:24:48PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:

> > > > Overall:
> > > > - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source
> > > >   (excluding arch-specific packages)
> > 
> > > Useless requirement. Less then 98% of the archive may be useful for the
> > > architecture
> > > >   (excluding arch-specific packages)
> > that's there for a reason

> Except that arch-specific package has always meant 'contains arch
> specific code', not 'does not make sense to run on this arch'. So this
> clause doesn't cover all cases.

I don't agree with that interpretation of "arch-specific", and neither
do the maintainers of the Packages-arch-specific list AFAICT, so please
stop trying to use creative interpretations of people's words to torpedo
the proposal that porters should be accountable for their ports.

> > > and it cannot be the porters problem that packages violate
> > > language rules and therefore fail to compile or work on some arch.

> > well, if the package is bogus from the language usage, than that's not
> > the porters problem (but how often did that hit exactly one arch?). If
> > the arch can't e.g. use C++-packages because it doesn't have the
> > toolchain for c++, I think that is the porters problem (just to give an
> > possible example).

> I have seen multiple examples of builds failing because the testsuite or
> a buildtime generated tool crashed on a specific arch due to bad coding
> practices.

And in some cases these are so severe that the package should
unequivocally be ignored for that architecture.  In other cases, it is
incumbent upon porters to, y'know, *port*.  If we're going to give a
port a free pass every time some base package, or package that's
installed as part of the desktop task (for example) manages to include
code that's not portable, then I don't see any point at all in treating
these as release architectures to begin with, because at that point
they're *not* shipping the same OS that the other architectures are.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: