| 1 |
Finn Thain wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm curious, is this really a binary compatibility issue, or just a |
| 3 |
> portability problem in libsigsegv? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
At risk of sounding rather alarmist, I assert the *potential* for binary |
| 6 |
compatibility issues. Panther's developer tools are not compatible with |
| 7 |
Tiger (and vice versa) because Apple changes things with each release. |
| 8 |
API changes, different gcc version, etc. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This example is a portability issue for libsigsegv. I'm no expert in |
| 11 |
imake, but as I understand it, the configure script isn't picky enough |
| 12 |
about darwin version and in this case there is an incompatibility |
| 13 |
between versions (as we saw between darwin5 and darwin7 in the 2.1 release). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Just because we know something builds on Tiger does not mean it builds |
| 16 |
on Panther. We know that. Which is why I think we need a better way to |
| 17 |
further clarify compatibility of ebuilds (better than package.mask). I |
| 18 |
don't want to keyword something on my Tiger system and have it break |
| 19 |
someone's Panther system. We claim support for Panther. Have we ever |
| 20 |
officially supported Tiger? Did we ever decide to focus on one release |
| 21 |
over the other? Do we test both systems before a keyword? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'd also like to point out that just because a package builds doesn't |
| 24 |
mean it works. Was it tested? Did it come with testing facilities? Do |
| 25 |
the tests pass on both Tiger and Panther? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Do we have a QA person? I've been away for a while, but I thought we |
| 28 |
had solutions to many of these problems before I went AWOL. |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives