tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]


David Holland <> writes:

> I'm not especially happy with the name BROKEN_EXCEPT_ON_PLATFORM; it
> could be WORKS_ON_PLATFORM, but (a) I'd kind of rather have the word
> BROKEN in it, and (b) that's too affirmative (not broken is not the
> same thing as known to be working...) and so far I can't think of
> anything else.

Do you have an example for this?   It seems to me that there are some
packages whose upstreams document that they only work on a limited
number of platforms; those should be SKIPped on other platforms.  Or
perhaps the documentation is implicit.

For BROKEN, it seems there is a notion that in an ideal world it would
work but it hasn't been debugged.  So people would add platforms, maybe
with a comments, as they find cases.

So I don't see when BROKEN_EXCEPT_ON_PLATFORM would make sense.

About compilers: I agree with Edgar that there is a distinction between
needing features a compiler doesn't provide and running into bugs.  But
it could also be that specifying required compilers is part of a
different infrastructure (which needs an overhaul, but that's separate),
and the BROKEN mechanism only about bugs.

(Other than that, your notion sounds good to me.)

Attachment: pgp6ht6YxfdUJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index