From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAD1F-0003Sa-0K for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:47:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UKiv7a016844; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:44:57 GMT Received: from mail.max-t.com (h216-18-124-229.gtcust.grouptelecom.net [216.18.124.229]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UKhIC9008530 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:43:18 GMT Received: from cocagne.max-t.internal ([192.168.1.124]) by mail.max-t.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EACyy-0007pi-SW for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:27 -0400 From: Olivier Crete To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050830214002.1ce72cc2@localhost> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829231247.104e9ff8@snowdrop.home> <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> <4314BA18.8040009@egr.msu.edu> <1125436518.15621.54.camel@darksystem> <20050830214002.1ce72cc2@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Organization: Gentoo Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1125434724.3539.42.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.1.124 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tester@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on mx.max-t.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1+cvs (built Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:35:17 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.max-t.com) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j7UKhIC9008530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id j7UKiv98016844 X-Archives-Salt: 03461812-7065-440c-8bb6-136bd6bd8df7 X-Archives-Hash: 3afa8b6db38a46252355bbc4f5dce0c1 On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +0000 > Luis Medinas wrote: >=20 > > I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between > > AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the > > tree that needs to be patched to work on AMD64 so we cannot cover > > AMD64/x86 under the same keyword.=20 >=20 > There are packages that will work on (for example) little-endian mips > but won't work or will need patching to work on big-endian, yet we > still cover both of those with one keyword. You are comparing apples and oranges.. Most of the herd devs only have x86 and are not able to test amd64. That's the main difference.=20 And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86 and its their responsability to do their QA. I've seen many horrible ebuilds done by ppc people too. And x86 has many more packages that any other architecture. Also, x86 is where most of the newbies are, we can't assume that if it works on amd64 it will also work on x86.. Let me say it again: x86 is still special.. its not a regular architecture.=20 That said, I agree, we need an x86 team. Maybe you want to lead it ? --=20 Olivier Cr=C3=AAte tester@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer x86 Security Liaison --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list