El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 23:10 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: > On 07/25/2017 05:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > First, the assumption in our processes seems to be that many or > > important bugs will be due to architecture-specific differences, and I > > wonder if that assumption really holds up. Do arch testers for a smaller > > arch often find problems that were not noticed on one of the larger > > arches? With the languages and tools that we have today, it seems like > > for many of our packages, bugs due to architectural differences > > represent a minority of the problems we found. In this case, the whole > > idea of per-arch stabilization does not really make sense, and doing > > away with that idea could drastically shortcut our process. > > This would be really interesting to know.
Anyway, I think it depends on the arch you are running. I remember to have seen specific issues for ia64, hppa, ppc64 or arm. But, for example, I agree that, *at present time*, I don't remember to have seen a package failing on x86 and not on amd64 for example (well, I now remember a past systemd upstream runtime bug that was catched in testing period ;)). Then, I guess it depends on each arch. For example, for x86 it could be probably done if things work on amd64 :/. Between ppc and ppc64 I don't know. For the others, I don't think that we can extrapolate between amd64 and ia64 for example (I remember important runtime issues to be catched only affecting ia64 for example).
