On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:20:12 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The discussion is either it is as reliable to use emulator (QEMU in > particular) as the real box. You brought an example where build > process under emulator failed. I mentioned that it might be not > emulator false but build chain and you pretty much agree to that. So > how that brings emulator under question of its equivalence in terms > of building packages to the real box? I should like to say right off that I do not have concrete examples of failure or differing behaviour. But, in theory, any emulator is just trying to replicate the behaviour of a pievce of hardware, and there are potential issues with both accuracy and completeness of emulation. So, unless one is claiming perfect emulation, there is alway potential of the emulated behaviour being subtly different. This is especially true of computations (built tests, etc) that are multi threaded, or otherwise rely on synchronization and timing. So I can certainly see build time testing giving very different results on emulated hardware as opposed to real hardware. The greater question is, if the archive masters request developers not to submit packages built on emulated hardware, should that request not be heeded? manoj -- Wouldn't this be a great world if being insecure and desperate were a turn-on? "Broadcast News" Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]