| 1 |
El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 23:10 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 07/25/2017 05:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > First, the assumption in our processes seems to be that many or |
| 4 |
> > important bugs will be due to architecture-specific differences, and I |
| 5 |
> > wonder if that assumption really holds up. Do arch testers for a smaller |
| 6 |
> > arch often find problems that were not noticed on one of the larger |
| 7 |
> > arches? With the languages and tools that we have today, it seems like |
| 8 |
> > for many of our packages, bugs due to architectural differences |
| 9 |
> > represent a minority of the problems we found. In this case, the whole |
| 10 |
> > idea of per-arch stabilization does not really make sense, and doing |
| 11 |
> > away with that idea could drastically shortcut our process. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This would be really interesting to know. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Anyway, I think it depends on the arch you are running. I remember to have seen |
| 16 |
specific issues for ia64, hppa, ppc64 or arm. But, for example, I agree that, |
| 17 |
*at present time*, I don't remember to have seen a package failing on x86 and |
| 18 |
not on amd64 for example (well, I now remember a past systemd upstream runtime |
| 19 |
bug that was catched in testing period ;)). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Then, I guess it depends on each arch. For example, for x86 it could be probably |
| 22 |
done if things work on amd64 :/. Between ppc and ppc64 I don't know. For the |
| 23 |
others, I don't think that we can extrapolate between amd64 and ia64 for example |
| 24 |
(I remember important runtime issues to be catched only affecting ia64 for |
| 25 |
example). |
Archives