On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > 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? Tested by *who*, exactly? That's precisely the question here. These are bugs that don't get found by just doing a test compile of one or two programs, they only get found by making extensive use of the toolchain. If the toolchain maintainers don't use the architecture in question, and there's no porter involved in the toolchain (packaging or upstream), then this doesn't happen. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
