On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 21:41 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 00:58 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 18:31 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > You keep saying this, and I disagree whole-heartedly. My experience > > > with sparc tells me this is absolutely not the case. > > > > I posted the bug numbers to support my observations, and they supported > > my qualitative recollection. > > > > Perhaps it's just that PowerPC is in dramatically better shape than > > SPARC, in general. Or maybe you've suffered a lot by being out of sync > > with Fedora proper. I'd be interested to see your data and how you've > > classified the bugs. > > Personally, I don't think PowerPC and SPARC are the hard cases. The > hard ones will be architectures that glibc doesn't build for. For more > than one reason. > > Still would be good to see Spot's SPARC data though, if he has some. Don't have hard data. Just 6 years experience in kicking RHL and Fedora into working for SPARC. What I've learned: Most open source apps build fine on SPARC. Those that do not are either: - endian unclean - missing sparc configure options - miscompile on sparc64 - glibc/gcc/kernel/openssl (only broken on sparc) - tools need to be made aware of sparc specifics - irrelevant on sparc I _never_ in 6 years uncovered a generic bug while working on sparc. The "primary" arches in RHL and Fedora always covered those bases (even before ppc was in the mix again). ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
