Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:59:12 +0200
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:50:52PM +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> To be honest, lots of that scientific code has questionable quality
> and I have seen lots of packages from the Debian Science team with
> hard-coded compiler options and other non-sense. So, to be honest,
> I could send the same statement into your direction: Those science
> packages should be kicked out due to their low quality.
I see no point in your repeated "to be honest" and blame others about
low quality. If in doubt read these three bug logs:
#882555, #887680, #887682
this failure turned out to stem from a problem with the build
setup (specifically, a qemu bug); sorry for the noise.
Getting fake bugs of severity important due to the fact that no real
hardware is used since it is to weak is not really convincing for
maintainers to spent time on it.
Besides the fact that you went totally off topic with blaming scientific
software about its quality: Yes, there is some share of low quality
software in science as in every other field. We are working hard to get
it fixed. If there are real bugs in the code these will occure not only
on m68k but also on other less used architectures and we try to sort
this out with upstream.
Your mail was quite convincing to me to simply do what I said (severity
minor + wontfix) since receiving agressive responses is one more reason
for me not to spent my time on this.