Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:00:42
Message-Id: 8cd1ed20911060800h4d2f88f8l90efb09c026e1f91@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations by Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o>wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> > wrote: > > In the past when smaller arches were not that active we used to mark > > Java packages stable after testing by at least one arch team. The > > probability to find arch specific issues in something like Java is not > > so high so I think arrangements like this are acceptable when the arch > > teams have problems keeping up. > > > > I think the same should be extended to other languages such as Perl > and Python (unless they have portions which are C/C++) > >
You can't really, although Perl has a vm of sorts, the per-arch differences that occur as a side effect of endianness, different floating point/integer math ( 32bit vs 64bit ) , and all those differences impact code. and XS modules of course, they're prone to everything C is prone to. -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o>