Steve Langasek dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800]: > > 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?
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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]