Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 23:10 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió:
> On 07/25/2017 05:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > First, the assumption in our processes seems to be that many or
> > important bugs will be due to architecture-specific differences, and I
> > wonder if that assumption really holds up. Do arch testers for a smaller
> > arch often find problems that were not noticed on one of the larger
> > arches? With the languages and tools that we have today, it seems like
> > for many of our packages, bugs due to architectural differences
> > represent a minority of the problems we found. In this case, the whole
> > idea of per-arch stabilization does not really make sense, and doing
> > away with that idea could drastically shortcut our process.
> 
> This would be really interesting to know.

Anyway, I think it depends on the arch you are running. I remember to have seen
specific issues for ia64, hppa, ppc64 or arm. But, for example, I agree that,
*at present time*, I don't remember to have seen a package failing on x86 and
not on amd64 for example (well, I now remember a past systemd upstream runtime
bug that was catched in testing period ;)). 

Then, I guess it depends on each arch. For example, for x86 it could be probably
done if things work on amd64 :/. Between ppc and ppc64 I don't know. For the
others, I don't think that we can extrapolate between amd64 and ia64 for example
(I remember important runtime issues to be catched only affecting ia64 for
example).