On 13-Sep-01, 17:50 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Previously Christian Leutloff wrote: > > Is it really necessary that the package must be able to be upgraded on > > every architecture!? > > That's the whole purpose of testing, keep the brokenness to a minimum. >
So now we have the situation with testing having a buggy core tool (apt) on all architectures, to avoid having broken accessory tools on a few architectures? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We really (okay, you, Anthony :-)) really need to consider the idea of allowing architecture slips in testing, if, there's been a package that has been waiting more than (say) 10 days on a rebuild on fewer than (say) 30% of the architectures. That way, the affected packages wouldn't break on the recalcitrant architectures, they just won't be as current. Yes, that might have be tightened up as we approach release. But at least the packages would get more testing on the most used architectures. Now, if the package won't *build* on the problem architectures, that's a different problem. But if the autobuilders are just behind, then the people who want to support those architectures need to deal with the problem. Steve