On 10/1/13 7:13 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:14:29 +0200
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>> What do you think?
> I think that when you set out to help every minor architecture get
> stable, you didn't know what you were getting into.
+1
I think it's great to see your work there,
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:14:29 +0200
Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> These type of failures are _not_ architecture dependant.
This is wrong.
Libraries behave differently on different architectures because the
compiled code is actually different. Different architectures use
different ways to access and
On 9/29/13 11:14 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> If you look at the policy, it says to test few rdeps.
And I think this is right. If you'd like things to be done in a
different way, discussing them is OK, but "unilaterally" just skipping
that is not OK.
> The arch tester is in charge to test the pa
This is a delicate point.
If you look at the policy, it says to test few rdeps.
The arch tester is in charge to test the packages on his architecture. These
type of failures are _not_ architecture dependant.
So, instead of have 10 ATs that are testing the same rdeps, seems logic that
the main
