* Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 17:01]: > On 8/22/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:35]: > > > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time > > > > a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may > > > > remember that the new glibc/gcc blocked non-toolchain progress for > > > > months during the beginning of the sarge release cycle, and that the > > > > aftermath took months more to be sorted out. So far, etch threatens to > > > > be more of the same; in the past month we've had: > > > > > I've been wondering, why isn't the new toolchain tested and the > > > resulting errors fixed before it's uploaded to unstable or made the > > > default? > > > > Because apparently nobody does. To really find out (some of) the > > toolchain bugs, you need to compile the whole archive with the new > > toolchain. And, BTW, the new toolchain was available in experimental for > > ages. Gcc 4.0 was also uploaded quite some time to unstable before it > > was made the default.
> I understand most maintainers don't try the new toolchain themselves, > but wouldn't it be possible for someone else to build the entire > archive (or parts of it by multiple people) and (automatically) report > bugs? Building is possible and has happened. About 500 of such bugs were still not resolved when gcc-4.0 was made the standard. But some obscure usage-breakage won't be noticed by that, unless the package has a decent self-test. So, in sum: yes, we try to do that as much as possible. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
