Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:11:04 +1100 (AEDT)
- From: Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Usage of real m68k hardware
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I'm personally drawng the decision that I will tag any bug that concerns
> scientific software (which is my main focus) and that bug is on m68k
> only as wontfix and will set severity to minor. I'm sorry but my focus
> is on real use cases and stumbling upon bugs in BTS which are not
> helping any real user is just draining time.
Computer science was productive before HPC came along, so I don't really
understand why "scientific software" should need special treatment.
However, I agree that there are packages that probably don't get used on
m68k. (And I imagine that the same can be said for other architectures.)
But isn't it better to let the porters figure out which packages are
relevant or not?
Is there actual value in increasing the closed bug count with "wontfix"?
Or is there some shortcoming of the BTS that is driving this?
With regard to numerical software, computational science etc.: both small
and large systems depend upon efficient code, so maintainers need not be
in conflict AFAICS.
I've written more about my own personal views on the m68k Linux port here
if you are interested,
> Kind regards
>  https://bugs.debian.org/887682