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 1EADe9-0003Nt-Ag for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:27:57 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7ULP6eY000255; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:25:06 GMT Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7ULNP2H015251 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:23:25 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc5-cmbg1-5-0-cust40.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([81.103.16.40]:50222 helo=localhost) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:465) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1EADbl-0000mV-3f (Exim 4.51) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path <spb@gentoo.org>); Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:25:29 +0100 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:36:57 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett <spb@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles Message-ID: <20050830223657.75a4c2b8@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1125434724.3539.42.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> 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> <1125434724.3539.42.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.8; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: spb42@hermes.cam.ac.uk X-Archives-Salt: 67692c04-7669-489d-a47f-b6a3b287c518 X-Archives-Hash: 11f09f9ecf2c4e9dd0f4d8f1c88c8026 On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete <tester@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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. Most of the mips devs only have 64-bit big endian SGI hardware, and aren't able to test on little-endian systems. Endianness issues are at least as big a problem as 64-bit issues when porting software. > 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. QA needs more than just the ebuilds not to suck. It needs someone making sure that the current stable versions of various packages play nicely together; see Ciaran's mail. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list