| 1 |
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:14:29 +0200 |
| 2 |
Agostino Sarubbo <ago@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> These type of failures are _not_ architecture dependant. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is wrong. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Libraries behave differently on different architectures because the |
| 9 |
compiled code is actually different. Different architectures use |
| 10 |
different ways to access and manipulate memory. Libraries are |
| 11 |
linked/loaded differently on different architectures. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If there is architecture specific code in a library, there is a really |
| 14 |
good chance that the internal test suite does not cover it because |
| 15 |
upstream doesn't have the hardware to test it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If there are generic code paths in a library that gets used when no |
| 18 |
architecture-specific code is available for a specific architecture, |
| 19 |
those might go untested upstream as well as on the package maintainer's |
| 20 |
system, since some (optional?) alternative architecture specific |
| 21 |
optimisation code paths might be (automatically) selected in either |
| 22 |
case. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I could go on... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> So, instead of have 10 ATs that are testing the same rdeps, seems |
| 27 |
> logic that the maintainer could do it one time. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Your logic is flawed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> What do you think? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I think that when you set out to help every minor architecture get |
| 34 |
stable, you didn't know what you were getting into. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
jer |
Archives