Hi Steve, STeve Andre' wrote on Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:04:06AM -0400: > On Thursday 12 April 2007 09:31:47 Christian Weisgerber wrote: >> Josh Grosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Originally submitted in January. Now, with: >>> >>> ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= amd64 i386 armish >>> >>> as it had been confirmed to run on those platforms, and would not run >>> on sparc64, nor on vax. >> >> It also dies with an alignment error on alpha (in regress). >> >> How about actually fixing the code rather than slapping on a list >> of archs where this accidentally happens to run? > > This brings up the issue of wether a porter needs to have access > to all the arches supported in order to submit something. That it > fails on the alpha isn't good, but should that preclue its inclusion? > if it were in the ports tree and someone with an alpha that wanted > to use it found it didn't work, they could work on it as well. > > This is a useful port right now. It could stand to be improved by > getting it to work on other arches , but should (i386, amd64) be > deprived of it?
I fear you miss part of the point. Christian suspects the software to be buggy. When bugs surface on some archs, who tells you they are harmless on others, even when they don't cause outright crashes? As far as i understand, this is more about getting a correct port into the tree than about hindering porters doing their work. Of course, everybody can propose ports tested on one single arch, but in case bugs are found, working together in order to fix them does look like a good idea. Of course, Josh will need help from someone having access to alpha, sparc64, or vax. Let's hope someone who can help will get in touch with Josh... Unfortunately, i have none of these archs. Yours, Ingo
