On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:09:42PM -0401, Nick Holland wrote: > > Let's see...what possibly fanless, low-power platforms do we have? >... > i386..ok, but you can native build on on Really Fast Stuff. >
Uh huh... unless your Really Fast Stuff happens to be an amd64 box in which case you are no longer doing a native build. > > Working on an old, slow machine is not a necessity anymore. If you > aren't doing it for fun, move on. If you can't laugh at release time > when someone hands you the SECOND "after the last minute" security fix > for an app requiring a rebuild and re-release, you are using the wrong > platform. > Yes, I have been there and done that too - the problem you have is when the cut off date for getting the CD master out for duplication is looming and you can see you won't have enough time to get a complete build done. That means you have the tough choice of pushing back the release date or not shipping that architecture (this leaves out the microsoft answer of just shipping with the bug of course...) > > Pretending for a moment your argument had merit, what if the cross build > works but the native build does not? What if your slow platform has a > platform-specific instability that shows itself on native building? > Been there, done that, too. > Isn't that called a bug? It's really no different to tracking a bug in the native build system... though it may be a lot faster due to the faster iteration times. > We've seen what cross-building means for other projects. We've seen > what native building does for OpenBSD. We rather like our choice. We > have seen what it does for quality. > Sure, fine. As I said before, this really impacts the developers more than the user community - your choice, you live with it. -- Brett Lymn
