On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 07:48:30AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:48:08PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Would it be worth adding a lintian check for instructions that may not > > > be supported (bearing in mind that a fair few packages will need to > > > override it)? > > I've wanted this for a while, but haven't been sure how to go about it. I > > would even favor making this an overrideable archive reject tag, for use of > > cmov outside of a hwcap directory. > > Something similar on armel (armv4t vs. armv7) and powerpc (altivec) would > > probably be worthwhile. > ... and that will fail to find the legitimate uses that are conditional > on the appropriate hardware support at runtime. Yes, that's why it should be an overridable archive reject instead of a mandatory one. But we do get packages with wrong code in the archive from time to time, and I think it would be good to have a higher bar for these accidentally-wrong packages. I guess you disagree? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
