On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 10:37:25PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three
> > > chips, not all. And, b
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > 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 n
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with this. There is a need for a set of base
> > packages to work, but it's entirely reasonable to have a release for eg
> > m68k without KDE or other large package sets. It's not as if debian/m68k
> > would be u
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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 a
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:15:11PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> > identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> > perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
>
> A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
> a class of problems that /cannot/ be identified by just building on the
> big N
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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 t
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 05:35]:
> "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 wou
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
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> 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
> u
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:35:04PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]:
> > This whole argument is bogus. Up to before Vancouver, we always said:
> > "A package should be Architecture: any if it can in principle be
> > compiled on every arch; the f
Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]:
> This whole argument is bogus. Up to before Vancouver, we always said:
> "A package should be Architecture: any if it can in principle be
> compiled on every arch; the fact that it might not be useful there does
> not justify excluding it
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
[quoting Andreas Barth]
>> | - the release architecture must have successfully compiled 98% of the
>> | archive's source (excluding architecture-specific packages)
>> well, that's just an "the architecture is basically working", so that we
>>
14 matches
Mail list logo
