> It was a mail to -devel, and I mispoke, it was aranym, not qemu, ;-) ok - getting closer to the true story here, but unfortunately I could not locate any 'failed build' email in the -devel from him within any reasonable timeframe where he would mentioned failed build. But I've found http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00084.html where he describes "quite reliable" setup ;-)
> It could certainly be a bug in the toolchain, or a bug in the emulator, > or a bug in the original source code. I'm not really sure it matters, > though. Increasing the likelihood of building bad binaries for little > gain doesn't seem like a good risk vs. gain assessment to me. yikes... if you got a bad apple it doesn't mean that an orange in the near-by basket is rotten as well... The discussion is either it is as reliable to use emulator (QEMU in particular) as the real box. You brought an example where build process under emulator failed. I mentioned that it might be not emulator false but build chain and you pretty much agree to that. So how that brings emulator under question of its equivalence in terms of building packages to the real box? And actually failed build is better IMHO than ok-build using flawed build tool, since it allows to detect/debug/eliminate the problem. So, to summarize, is possible to extract now from your statement that real arch promotes building 'bad binaries' ;-) -- .-. =------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------= Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192 Linux User ^^-^^ [175555] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]