| Steve Langasek 2005-03-19, 2:47 am |
| On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:35:04PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ummm... What do you think about this:
> There are packages we recognize will be of little use in certain
> architectures - say, KDE on m68k, qemu on a !i386, etc. They should be
> built anyway on all architectures where expected to run be buildable,
> anyway, as a QA measure - many subtle bugs appear as the result of
> architecture-specific quirks.
> "Architecture: any" means "build anywhere". We could introduce a
> second header, say, Not-deploy-for: or Not-required-for:. This would
> mean that KDE _would_ be built for m68k if the buildds are not too
> busy doing other stuff, and probably would not enter our archive (or
> would enter a different section - just as we now have contrib and
> non-free, we could introduce not-useful ;-) )
As pointed out in a recent thread, most of the core hardware portability
issues are picked up just by building on "the big three" -- i386, powerpc,
amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
useful to build it as a "QA measure"? What value is there, in fact, in
checking for bugs that will only be tripped while building software that
isn't going to be used?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
|