| Gunnar Wolf 2005-03-19, 5:49 pm |
| Steve Langasek dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800]:
>
>
> 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?
As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three
chips, not all. And, by not making a hard requirement to compile the
packages which will not be used, you are not holding the project back
waiting for m68k's KDE. Probably m68k will _never_ compile KDE, as I
doubt their buildds are ever idle - But what do you prefer, say, for
our ia64 buildd, to just sit there waiting for a new package to
arrive, or to start compiling something that will be useful only for
QA, and only probably?
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)1451-2244 / 5554-9450
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|