Stephen Bennett posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:40:02 +0100:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +0000 > Luis Medinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between >> AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the >> tree that needs to be patched to work on AMD64 so we cannot cover >> AMD64/x86 under the same keyword. > > There are packages that will work on (for example) little-endian mips > but won't work or will need patching to work on big-endian, yet we > still cover both of those with one keyword. OK, I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an explanation of how to do it, without either causing issues for the one segment, or holding up keywording perfectly working packages on another segment. Perhaps it can be done, please explain how if so. No offense intended, but as a user, I /like/ to actually know that a package keyworded for my arch (segment) is known to work on it in full (IMHO) uncrippled amd64 form, not in some (IMHO) "crippled 32-bit special case". If we went the other way and removed x86 keywording from everything that failed in 64-bit mode, including all 32-bit only codecs and the like, x86(32) arch(segment) folks would rightly be wailing in protest. Again, no offense intended, but unless you have some magic way to fix that situation, perhaps the MIPS devs and users are willing to live with that problem on MIPS, but neither x86(32) users nor amd64 users (and by this I'm including devs, which are obviously users as well) are interested in being saddled with an unnecessary problem, when the current situation avoids it, or I expect the amd64 keyword would have never been added. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
