-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Matti Bickel wrote:
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
FEATURES, and an up to date system?
Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch
devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the
number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM?
Unless this causes problems for people, I'd like to be able to find it.
As you see from my signature, I'm extrapolating from sparc here, but on
sparc, at least, the specs and configuration of a failing system (or of a
system which cannot be made to fail) is sometimes highly relevant.
Having this sort of information can't hurt and might help, so I'd ask
please provide it someplace if convenient.
Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug
is annoying and should be abolished.
Yes. Well, if you say everything is good, I just don't read it. I
sometimes compromise on bugs and give a two or three line indication of
just which system(s) I am reporting on. If people want more information,
they can ask me or go to a summary page sparc maintains --- all my systems
are described there.
--
MfG, Matti Bickel
Homepage: http://www.rateu.de
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred
Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE28DyQa6M3+I///cRAqWRAKCSzbmYM8G16DzXuqdUHbYgVnivsQCgyVqS
mO5HEmm6oc3yrqfX0IfrMug=
=T6kP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[email protected] mailing list
